CHEST Physician

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open described the epidemiological characteristics of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in Ontario, Canada, after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the latest in a series of studies that suggest that virus circulation dynamics and hospitalizations have changed over time. These are crucial pieces of information for managing the seasonal epidemic.
 

News From Canada

The Canadian study compared hospitalization rates and characteristics of children aged < 5 years who were admitted to the hospital for RSV infection during three prepandemic seasons (2017-2020) and two “postpandemic” seasons (2021-2023).

Compared with the prepandemic period, the 2021-2022 RSV season peaked a little earlier (early December instead of mid-December) but had comparable hospitalization rates. The 2022-2023 season, on the other hand, peaked a month earlier with a more than doubled hospitalization rate. Hospitalizations increased from about 2000 to 4977. In 2022, hospitalizations also occurred in spring and summer. In 2022-2023, more hospitalizations than expected were observed, especially in the 24-59–month-old group.

The percentage of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) increased (11.4% in 2021-2022 and 13.9% in 2022-2023 compared with 9.8% in 2017-2018), and the ICU hospitalization rate tripled compared with the prepandemic period. No differences were observed in ICU length of stay or severe outcomes (such as use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or hospital mortality). The use of mechanical ventilation increased, however.
 

News From the USA

Another recent study, published in Pediatrics, provides an overview of RSV epidemiology in the United States based on data collected from seven pediatric hospitals across the country. Data from 2021 and 2022 were compared with those from four prepandemic seasons (2016-2020).

Most observations agree with what was reported in the Canadian study. In the four prepandemic years, the peak of RSV-associated hospitalizations was recorded in December-January. In 2021, it was in July, and in 2022, it was in November. Hospitalization rates of RSV-positive patients in 2021 and 2022 were higher than those in the prepandemic period. In 2022, compared with 2021, the hospitalization rate of children aged < 2 years did not change, while that of children aged 24-59 months increased significantly.

In 2022, the percentage of children requiring oxygen therapy was higher. But unlike in the other study, the percentage of children undergoing mechanical ventilation or those hospitalized in ICUs was not significantly different from the past. It is worth noting that in 2022, multiple respiratory coinfections were more frequently found in RSV-positive hospitalized children.
 

News From Italy

“In our experience, as well, the epidemiology of RSV has shown changes following the pandemic,” Marta Luisa Ciofi degli Atti, MD, head of the Epidemiology, Clinical Pathways, and Clinical Risk Complex Operating Unit at the Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Before the pandemic, RSV infection peaks were regularly in late December-January. The pandemic, with its containment measures, interrupted the typical seasonality of RSV: A season was skipped, and in 2021, there was a season that was different from all previous ones because it was anticipated, with a peak in October-November and a much higher incidence. In 2022, we also had a higher autumn incidence compared with the past, with a peak in November. However, the number of confirmed infections approached prepandemic levels. The season was also anticipated in 2023, so prepandemic epidemiology does not seem to have stabilized yet.”

As did Canada and the USA, Italy had an increase in incidence among older children in 2022. “Cases of children aged 1-4 years increased from 24% in 2018 to 30%, and those of children aged 5-9 years from 5.4% to 8.7%,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Children in the first year of life were similarly affected in the pre- and postpandemic periods, while cases increased among older children. It is as if there has been an accumulation of susceptible patients: Children who did not get sick in the first year of life during the pandemic and got sick later in the postpandemic period.”
 

Predicting (and Preventing) Chaos

As described in an article recently published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, Dr. Ciofi degli Atti worked on a model to predict the peak of RSV infections. “It is a mathematical predictive model that, based on observations in a certain number of seasons, allows the estimation of expectations,” she explained. It is challenging to develop a model when there are highly disruptive events such as a pandemic, she added, but these situations make predictive tools of the utmost interest. “The predictive capacity for the 2023 season was good: We had predicted that the peak would be reached in week 49, and indeed, the peak was observed in December.”

The study’s authors noted that in the years considered, the seasonal peak of RSV infections always occurred 4-5 weeks after the week in which the number of hospitalizations doubled or tripled. “It is a curve that rises very rapidly,” said the epidemiologist.

“RSV infection causes severe clinical conditions that affect young children who may need hospitalization and sometimes respiratory assistance. The epidemic peaks within a few weeks and has a disruptive effect on healthcare organization,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Preventive vaccination is a huge opportunity in terms of health benefits for young children, who are directly involved, and also to reduce the impact that seasonal RSV epidemics have on hospital pathways. At the national and regional levels, work is therefore underway to start vaccination to prevent the circulation of this virus.”
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open described the epidemiological characteristics of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in Ontario, Canada, after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the latest in a series of studies that suggest that virus circulation dynamics and hospitalizations have changed over time. These are crucial pieces of information for managing the seasonal epidemic.
 

News From Canada

The Canadian study compared hospitalization rates and characteristics of children aged < 5 years who were admitted to the hospital for RSV infection during three prepandemic seasons (2017-2020) and two “postpandemic” seasons (2021-2023).

Compared with the prepandemic period, the 2021-2022 RSV season peaked a little earlier (early December instead of mid-December) but had comparable hospitalization rates. The 2022-2023 season, on the other hand, peaked a month earlier with a more than doubled hospitalization rate. Hospitalizations increased from about 2000 to 4977. In 2022, hospitalizations also occurred in spring and summer. In 2022-2023, more hospitalizations than expected were observed, especially in the 24-59–month-old group.

The percentage of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) increased (11.4% in 2021-2022 and 13.9% in 2022-2023 compared with 9.8% in 2017-2018), and the ICU hospitalization rate tripled compared with the prepandemic period. No differences were observed in ICU length of stay or severe outcomes (such as use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or hospital mortality). The use of mechanical ventilation increased, however.
 

News From the USA

Another recent study, published in Pediatrics, provides an overview of RSV epidemiology in the United States based on data collected from seven pediatric hospitals across the country. Data from 2021 and 2022 were compared with those from four prepandemic seasons (2016-2020).

Most observations agree with what was reported in the Canadian study. In the four prepandemic years, the peak of RSV-associated hospitalizations was recorded in December-January. In 2021, it was in July, and in 2022, it was in November. Hospitalization rates of RSV-positive patients in 2021 and 2022 were higher than those in the prepandemic period. In 2022, compared with 2021, the hospitalization rate of children aged < 2 years did not change, while that of children aged 24-59 months increased significantly.

In 2022, the percentage of children requiring oxygen therapy was higher. But unlike in the other study, the percentage of children undergoing mechanical ventilation or those hospitalized in ICUs was not significantly different from the past. It is worth noting that in 2022, multiple respiratory coinfections were more frequently found in RSV-positive hospitalized children.
 

News From Italy

“In our experience, as well, the epidemiology of RSV has shown changes following the pandemic,” Marta Luisa Ciofi degli Atti, MD, head of the Epidemiology, Clinical Pathways, and Clinical Risk Complex Operating Unit at the Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Before the pandemic, RSV infection peaks were regularly in late December-January. The pandemic, with its containment measures, interrupted the typical seasonality of RSV: A season was skipped, and in 2021, there was a season that was different from all previous ones because it was anticipated, with a peak in October-November and a much higher incidence. In 2022, we also had a higher autumn incidence compared with the past, with a peak in November. However, the number of confirmed infections approached prepandemic levels. The season was also anticipated in 2023, so prepandemic epidemiology does not seem to have stabilized yet.”

As did Canada and the USA, Italy had an increase in incidence among older children in 2022. “Cases of children aged 1-4 years increased from 24% in 2018 to 30%, and those of children aged 5-9 years from 5.4% to 8.7%,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Children in the first year of life were similarly affected in the pre- and postpandemic periods, while cases increased among older children. It is as if there has been an accumulation of susceptible patients: Children who did not get sick in the first year of life during the pandemic and got sick later in the postpandemic period.”
 

Predicting (and Preventing) Chaos

As described in an article recently published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, Dr. Ciofi degli Atti worked on a model to predict the peak of RSV infections. “It is a mathematical predictive model that, based on observations in a certain number of seasons, allows the estimation of expectations,” she explained. It is challenging to develop a model when there are highly disruptive events such as a pandemic, she added, but these situations make predictive tools of the utmost interest. “The predictive capacity for the 2023 season was good: We had predicted that the peak would be reached in week 49, and indeed, the peak was observed in December.”

The study’s authors noted that in the years considered, the seasonal peak of RSV infections always occurred 4-5 weeks after the week in which the number of hospitalizations doubled or tripled. “It is a curve that rises very rapidly,” said the epidemiologist.

“RSV infection causes severe clinical conditions that affect young children who may need hospitalization and sometimes respiratory assistance. The epidemic peaks within a few weeks and has a disruptive effect on healthcare organization,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Preventive vaccination is a huge opportunity in terms of health benefits for young children, who are directly involved, and also to reduce the impact that seasonal RSV epidemics have on hospital pathways. At the national and regional levels, work is therefore underway to start vaccination to prevent the circulation of this virus.”
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open described the epidemiological characteristics of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in Ontario, Canada, after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the latest in a series of studies that suggest that virus circulation dynamics and hospitalizations have changed over time. These are crucial pieces of information for managing the seasonal epidemic.
 

News From Canada

The Canadian study compared hospitalization rates and characteristics of children aged < 5 years who were admitted to the hospital for RSV infection during three prepandemic seasons (2017-2020) and two “postpandemic” seasons (2021-2023).

Compared with the prepandemic period, the 2021-2022 RSV season peaked a little earlier (early December instead of mid-December) but had comparable hospitalization rates. The 2022-2023 season, on the other hand, peaked a month earlier with a more than doubled hospitalization rate. Hospitalizations increased from about 2000 to 4977. In 2022, hospitalizations also occurred in spring and summer. In 2022-2023, more hospitalizations than expected were observed, especially in the 24-59–month-old group.

The percentage of patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) increased (11.4% in 2021-2022 and 13.9% in 2022-2023 compared with 9.8% in 2017-2018), and the ICU hospitalization rate tripled compared with the prepandemic period. No differences were observed in ICU length of stay or severe outcomes (such as use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or hospital mortality). The use of mechanical ventilation increased, however.
 

News From the USA

Another recent study, published in Pediatrics, provides an overview of RSV epidemiology in the United States based on data collected from seven pediatric hospitals across the country. Data from 2021 and 2022 were compared with those from four prepandemic seasons (2016-2020).

Most observations agree with what was reported in the Canadian study. In the four prepandemic years, the peak of RSV-associated hospitalizations was recorded in December-January. In 2021, it was in July, and in 2022, it was in November. Hospitalization rates of RSV-positive patients in 2021 and 2022 were higher than those in the prepandemic period. In 2022, compared with 2021, the hospitalization rate of children aged < 2 years did not change, while that of children aged 24-59 months increased significantly.

In 2022, the percentage of children requiring oxygen therapy was higher. But unlike in the other study, the percentage of children undergoing mechanical ventilation or those hospitalized in ICUs was not significantly different from the past. It is worth noting that in 2022, multiple respiratory coinfections were more frequently found in RSV-positive hospitalized children.
 

News From Italy

“In our experience, as well, the epidemiology of RSV has shown changes following the pandemic,” Marta Luisa Ciofi degli Atti, MD, head of the Epidemiology, Clinical Pathways, and Clinical Risk Complex Operating Unit at the Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Before the pandemic, RSV infection peaks were regularly in late December-January. The pandemic, with its containment measures, interrupted the typical seasonality of RSV: A season was skipped, and in 2021, there was a season that was different from all previous ones because it was anticipated, with a peak in October-November and a much higher incidence. In 2022, we also had a higher autumn incidence compared with the past, with a peak in November. However, the number of confirmed infections approached prepandemic levels. The season was also anticipated in 2023, so prepandemic epidemiology does not seem to have stabilized yet.”

As did Canada and the USA, Italy had an increase in incidence among older children in 2022. “Cases of children aged 1-4 years increased from 24% in 2018 to 30%, and those of children aged 5-9 years from 5.4% to 8.7%,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Children in the first year of life were similarly affected in the pre- and postpandemic periods, while cases increased among older children. It is as if there has been an accumulation of susceptible patients: Children who did not get sick in the first year of life during the pandemic and got sick later in the postpandemic period.”
 

Predicting (and Preventing) Chaos

As described in an article recently published in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics, Dr. Ciofi degli Atti worked on a model to predict the peak of RSV infections. “It is a mathematical predictive model that, based on observations in a certain number of seasons, allows the estimation of expectations,” she explained. It is challenging to develop a model when there are highly disruptive events such as a pandemic, she added, but these situations make predictive tools of the utmost interest. “The predictive capacity for the 2023 season was good: We had predicted that the peak would be reached in week 49, and indeed, the peak was observed in December.”

The study’s authors noted that in the years considered, the seasonal peak of RSV infections always occurred 4-5 weeks after the week in which the number of hospitalizations doubled or tripled. “It is a curve that rises very rapidly,” said the epidemiologist.

“RSV infection causes severe clinical conditions that affect young children who may need hospitalization and sometimes respiratory assistance. The epidemic peaks within a few weeks and has a disruptive effect on healthcare organization,” said Dr. Ciofi degli Atti. “Preventive vaccination is a huge opportunity in terms of health benefits for young children, who are directly involved, and also to reduce the impact that seasonal RSV epidemics have on hospital pathways. At the national and regional levels, work is therefore underway to start vaccination to prevent the circulation of this virus.”
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 90% of internet users are active on social media, which had 4.76 billion users worldwide in January 2023. The digital revolution has reshaped the news landscape and changed how users interact with information. Social media has fostered an active relationship with the media, including the ability to interact directly with the content presented. It also has augmented media’s ability to reach a large audience with tight deadlines.

These developments suggest that social media can be a useful tool in everyday medical practice for professionals and patients. But social media also can spread misinformation, as happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This characteristic is the focus of the latest research by Fabiana Zollo, a computer science professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy, and coordinator of the Data Science for Society laboratory. The research was published in The BMJ. Ms. Zollo’s research group aims to assess the effect of social media on misinformation and consequent behaviors related to health. “The study results focus primarily on two topics, the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations, but can also be applied to other health-related behaviors such as smoking and diet,” Ms. Zollo told Univadis Italy.

Social media has become an important tool for public health organizations to inform and educate citizens. Institutions can use it to monitor choices and understand which topics are being discussed most at a given time, thus comprehending how the topics evolve and take shape in public discourse. “This could lead to the emergence of people’s perceptions, allowing us to understand, among other things, what the population’s needs might be, including informational needs,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

Tenuous Causal Link

While social media offers public health organizations the opportunity to inform and engage the public, it also raises concerns about misinformation and the difficulty of measuring its effect on health behavior. Although some studies have observed correlations between exposure to misinformation on social media and levels of adherence to vaccination campaigns, establishing a causal link is complex. As the authors emphasize, “despite the importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s behavior and the broad hypotheses within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a clear causal association between social media and health behaviors.” Establishing a clear causal link between information obtained from social media and offline behavior is challenging due to methodologic limitations and the complexity of connections between online and offline behaviors. Studies often rely on self-reported data, which may not accurately reflect real behaviors, and struggle to isolate the effect of social media from other external influences. Moreover, many studies primarily focus on Western countries, limiting the generalizability of the results to other cultural and geographical conditions.

Another issue highlighted by Ms. Zollo and colleagues is the lack of complete and representative data. Studies often lack detailed information about participants, such as demographic or geolocation data, and rely on limited samples. This lack makes it difficult to assess the effect of misinformation on different segments of the population and in different geographic areas.

“The main methodologic difficulty concerns behavior, which is difficult to measure because it would require tracking a person’s actions over time and having a shared methodology to do so. We need to understand whether online stated intentions do or do not translate into actual behaviors,” said Ms. Zollo. Therefore, despite the recognized importance of the effect of social media and misinformation on people’s general behavior and the broad hypotheses expressed within public and political debates, the current state of the art cannot provide definitive conclusions on a causal association between social media and health behaviors.
 

Institutions’ Role

Social media is a fertile ground for the formation of echo chambers (where users find themselves dialoguing with like-minded people, forming a distorted impression of the real prevalence of that opinion) and for reinforcing polarized positions around certain topics. “We know that on certain topics, especially those related to health, there is a lot of misinformation circulating precisely because it is easy to leverage factors such as fear and beliefs, even the difficulties in understanding the technical aspects of a message,” said Ms. Zollo. Moreover, institutions have not always provided timely information during the pandemic. “Often, when there is a gap in response to a specific informational need, people turn elsewhere, where those questions find answers. And even if the response is not of high quality, it sometimes confirms the idea that the user had already created in their mind.”

The article published in The BMJ aims primarily to provide information and evaluation insights to institutions rather than professionals or healthcare workers. “We would like to spark the interest of institutions and ministries that can analyze this type of data and integrate it into their monitoring system. Social monitoring (the observation of what happens on social media) is a practice that the World Health Organization is also evaluating and trying to integrate with more traditional tools, such as questionnaires. The aim is to understand as well as possible what a population thinks about a particular health measure, such as a vaccine: Through data obtained from social monitoring, a more realistic and comprehensive view of the problem could be achieved,” said Ms. Zollo.
 

A Doctor’s Role

And this is where the doctor comes in: All the information thus obtained allows for identifying the needs that the population expresses and that “could push a patient to turn elsewhere, toward sources that provide answers even if of dubious quality or extremely oversimplified.” The doctor can enter this landscape by trying to understand, even with the data provided by institutions, what needs the patients are trying to fill and what drives them to seek elsewhere and to look for a reference community that offers the relevant confirmations.

From the doctor’s perspective, therefore, it can be useful to understand how these dynamics arise and evolve because they could help improve interactions with patients. At the institutional level, social monitoring would be an excellent tool for providing services to doctors who, in turn, offer a service to patients. If it were possible to identify areas where a disinformation narrative is developing from the outset, both the doctor and the institutions would benefit.
 

Misinformation vs Disinformation

The rapid spread of false or misleading information on social media can undermine trust in healthcare institutions and negatively influence health-related behaviors. Ms. Zollo and colleagues, in fact, speak of misinformation in their discussion, not disinformation. “In English, a distinction is made between misinformation and disinformation, a distinction that we are also adopting in Italian. When we talk about misinformation, we mean information that is generally false, inaccurate, or misleading but has not been created with the intention to harm, an intention that is present in disinformation,” said Ms. Zollo.

The distinction is often not easy to define even at the operational level, but in her studies, Ms. Zollo is mainly interested in understanding how the end user interacts with content, not the purposes for which that content was created. “This allows us to focus on users and the relationships that are created on various social platforms, thus bypassing the author of that information and focusing on how misinformation arises and evolves so that it can be effectively combated before it translates into action (ie, into incorrect health choices),” said Ms. Zollo.
 

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.