CHEST Physician

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It should come as no surprise that when physicians speak out on social and political issues, there is sometimes a backlash. This can range from the typical trolling that occurs online to rarer cases of professional penalties. Two doctors were fired by NYU Langone Health late last year after they posted social media messages about the Israel-Hamas war. Still, many physicians are not only willing to stand up for what they believe in, but they see it as an essential part of their profession. 
"We're now at a place where doctors need to engage in public advocacy as an urgent part of our job," wrote Rob Davidson, MD, an emergency department physician, at the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an Op-Ed piece for The Guardian, Dr. Davidson noted how the virus forced many physicians into becoming "activist doctors," calling for adequate personal protective equipment and correcting misinformation. "What we want above all is for the administration to listen to doctors, nurses, and frontline health workers - and stop playing politics," he wrote. 

'It's Not About Being Political' 

The intersection of medicine and politics is hardly new. Doctors frequently testify before Congress, sharing their expertise on issues concerning public health. This, however, isn't the same as "playing politics." 
"I'm not taking political stances," said Megan Ranney, MD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "Rather, I'm using science to inform best practices, and I'm vocal around the area where I have expertise where we could do collectively better." 
Dr. Ranney's work to end firearm injury and death garnered particular attention when she co-authored an open letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2018. She wrote the letter in response to a tweet by the organization, admonishing physicians to "stay in their lane" when it comes to gun control.  
Dr. Ranney's letter discussed gun violence as a public health crisis and urged the NRA to "be part of the solution" by joining the collective effort to reduce firearm injury and death through research, education, and advocacy. "We are not anti-gun," she stated. "We are anti-bullet hole," adding that "almost half of doctors own guns." 
The NRA disagreed. When Dr. Ranney testified before Congress during a hearing on gun violence in 2023, NRA spokesperson Billy McLaughlin condemned her testimony as an effort to "dismantle the Second Amendment," calling Dr. Ranney "a known gun control extremist." 
"If you actually read what I write, or if you actually listen to what I say, I'm not saying things on behalf of one political party or another," said Dr. Ranney. "It's not about being political. It's about recognizing our role in describing what's happening and making it clear for the world to see. Showing where, based off of data, there may be a better path to improve health and wellbeing." 
In spite of the backlash, Dr. Ranney has no regrets about being an activist. "In the current media landscape, folks love to slap labels on people that may or may not be accurate. To me, what matters isn't where I land with a particular politician or political party, but how the work that I do improves health for populations." 

When the Need to Act Outweighs the Fear 

Laura Andreson, DO, an ob.gyn, took activism a step further when she joined a group of women in Tennessee to file a suit against the state, the attorney general, and the state board of medical examiners. The issue was the Tennessee's abortion ban, which the suit claimed prevented women from getting "necessary and potentially life-saving medical care."  
Dr. Andreson, who says she was "not at all" politically active in the past, began to realize how the abortion ban could drastically affect her profession and her patients. "I don't know what flipped in me, but I just felt like I could do this," she said. 
Like Dr. Ranney, Dr. Andreson has been as visible as she has been vocal, giving press conferences and interviews, but she acknowledges she has some fears about safety. In fact, after filing the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights recommended that she go to a website, DeleteMe, that removes personal data from the internet, making it more difficult for people to find her information. "But my need to do this and my desire to do this is stronger than my fears," she added. 
Dr. Andreson, who is part of a small practice, did check with both her coworkers and the hospital administration before moving forward with the lawsuit. She was relieved to find that she had the support of her practice and that there wasn't anything in the hospital bylaws to prevent her from filing the lawsuit. "But the people in the bigger institutions who probably have an even better expert base than I do, they are handcuffed," she said. 
It has been, in Dr. Andreson's words, "a little uncomfortable" being on the board of the Tennessee Medical Association when the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners is part of the lawsuit. "We're all members of the same group," she said. "But I'm not suing them as individuals; I'm suing them as an entity that is under our government." 
Dr. Andreson said most people have been supportive of her activist work, though she admitted to feeling frustrated when she encounters apathy from fellow ob.gyns. She got little response when she circulated information explaining the abortion laws and trying to get others involved. But she still sees education as being a key part of making change happen.  
"I think advocacy, as someone who is considered a responsible, trustworthy person by your community, is important, because you can sway some people just by educating them," she said. 

Fighting Inequities in Medicine and Beyond 

Christina Chen, MD, says she felt very supported by her medical community at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, when she and 16 other Asian American physicians posted a video on Instagram in 2020 highlighting increased violence and harassment of Asian Americans during COVID-19. It soon went viral, and the Mayo Clinic distributed it across their social media channels. The only negative repercussions Mayo faced were a few posts on social media saying that politics should not be brought into the healthcare space. Dr. Chen disagrees. 
"Social issues and political decisions have direct impact on the health of our communities," Dr. Chen said. "We know that we still have a long way to go to solve health inequities, which is a public health problem, and we all play a huge role in voicing our concerns." 
Activism, however, seems to be more complicated when it involves physicians being critical of inequities within the medical field. Nephrologist, Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, founded the nonprofit Black Doc Village in 2022 to raise awareness about the wrongful dismissal of Black residents and expand the Black physician workforce. 
Dr. Grubbs said that the medical community has not been supportive of her activism. "The reason why I'm no longer in academia is in part because they got very upset with me tweeting about how some trainees are biased in their treatment of attendings," she said. "Senior White men attendings are often treated very differently than junior women of color faculty." 
Dr. Grubbs also expressed her views in 2020 essay in the New England Journal of Medicine where she criticized academic medical institutions for ignoring systemic racism, paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and staying "deafeningly silent" when issues of racism are raised. 
Today, Black Doc Village is focused on conducting research that can be used to change policy. And Dr. Grubbs now has the full support of her colleagues at West Oakland Health, in Oakland, California, which aspires to advance the Bay Area Black community's health and dignity. "So, no one here has a problem with me speaking out," she added. 
The emphasis on data-driven activism as opposed to "playing politics," is a recurring theme for many physicians who publicly engage with social issues. 
"It's not partisan," Dr. Ranney said. "Rather, it's a commitment to translating science into actionable steps that can be used regardless of what political party you are in. My job is not to be on one side or the other, but to advance human health." These doctors challenge their critics to explain how such a goal is outside their purview. 
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.

The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.

“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.” 

The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Telemedicine Protocol

The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter. 

Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years. 

If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.

Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.

Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).

MACE rates were similar between the two groups.

At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.

The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).

Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
 

Human Element Key

In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.

However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”

Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology. 

“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”

While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”

The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Fewer than half of the cancer drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway between 2013 and 2017 have been shown to improve overall survival or quality of life, despite being on the US market for more than 5 years, according to a new study. 

Under the program, drugs are approved for marketing if they show benefit in surrogate markers thought to indicate efficacy. Progression-free survival, tumor response, and duration of response are the most used surrogate markers for accelerated approvals of cancer drugs. These are based largely on imaging studies that show either a stop in growth in the case of progression-free survival or tumor shrinkage in the case of tumor response. 

Following accelerated approvals, companies are then supposed to show actual clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The problem with relying on surrogate markers for drug approvals is that they don’t always correlate with longer survival or improved quality of life, said Edward Cliff, MBBS, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research 2024 annual meeting (abstract 918). The study was also published in JAMA to coincide with the meeting presentation.

In some cancers, these markers work well, but in others they don’t, said Dr. Cliff, a hematology trainee at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when the work was conducted, and now a hematology fellow at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately show an overall survival or quality of life benefit, researchers reviewed 46 cancer drugs granted accelerated approvals between 2013 and 2017. Twenty (43%) were granted full approval after demonstrating survival or quality-of-life benefits. 

Nine, however, were converted to full approvals on the basis of surrogate markers. These include a full approval for pembrolizumab in previously treated recurrent or refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and a full approval for nivolumab for refractory locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, both based on tumor response rate and duration of response.

Of the remaining 17 drugs evaluated in the trial, 10 have been withdrawn and seven do not yet have confirmatory trial results. 

The reliance on surrogate markers means that these drugs are used for treatment, covered by insurance, and added to guidelines — all without solid evidence of real-world clinical benefit, said Dr. Cliff. 

However, the goal should not be to do away with the accelerated approval process, because it sometimes does deliver powerful agents to patients quickly. Instead, Dr. Cliff told this news organization, the system needs to be improved so that “we keep the speed while getting certainty around clinical benefits” with robust and timely confirmatory trials. 

In the meantime, “clinicians should communicate with patients about any residual uncertainty of clinical benefit when they offer novel therapies,” Dr. Cliff explained. “It’s important for them to have the information.”

There has been some progress on the issue. In December 2022, the US Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Reform Act. Among other things, the Act requires companies to have confirmation trials underway as a condition for accelerated approval, and to provide regular reports on their progress. The Act also expedites the withdrawal process for drugs that don’t show a benefit. 

The Act has been put to the test twice recently. In February, FDA used the expedited process to remove the multiple myeloma drug melphalan flufenamide from the market. Melphalan flufenamide hadn’t been sold in the US for quite some time, so the process wasn’t contentious. 

In March, Regeneron announced that accelerated approval for the follicular and diffuse B cell lymphoma drug odronextamab has been delayed pending enrollment in a confirmatory trial. 

“There have been some promising steps,” Dr. Cliff said, but much work needs to be done. 

Study moderator Shivaani Kummar, MD, agreed, noting that “the data is showing that the confirmatory trials aren’t happening at the pace which they should.” 

But the solution is not to curtail approvals; it’s to make sure that accelerated approval commitments are met, said Dr. Kummar.

Still, “as a practicing oncologist, I welcome the accelerated pathway,” Dr. Kummar, a medical oncologist/hematologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, told this news organization. “I want the availability to my patients.” 

Having drugs approved on the basis of surrogate markers doesn’t necessarily mean patients are getting ineffective therapies, Dr. Kummar noted. For instance, if an agent just shrinks the tumor, it can sometimes still be “a huge clinical benefit because it can take the symptoms away.” 

As for prescribing drugs based on accelerated approvals, she said she tells her patients that trials have been promising, but we don’t know what the long-term effects are. She and her patient then make a decision together. 

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kummar reported support from several companies, including Bayer, Gilead, and others. Dr. Cliff had no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dhaval Desai, MD, was teaching his 4-year-old to ride a bike after another exhausting shift at the hospital during the summer after the first COVID-19 surge. He was putting on a happy face and forcing out a “Yay!” he did not feel. The pandemic had taken its toll, and he just wanted to lie down and be alone. Realizing that he was “scraping to find joy” was when he knew something was wrong.

“I was giving, giving, giving at work a lot, and I had little left to give at home,” said Dr. Desai, director of hospital medicine at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

At work, he worried about his wife managing two kids — including a newborn — during the pandemic. At home, he stressed about work and the crush of patients with COVID the hospital was grappling to handle. He was exhausted, resentful, and angry, and it was jeopardizing what mattered most to him: His home life.

“It was all colliding…I realized, OK, I’m struggling,” he said.

Dr. Desai is one of thousands of physicians across the United States who have experienced burnout and depression, exacerbated by the pandemic. After 4 years, the impact is still being felt. Medscape’s 2024 annual report on this issue found that burnout and depression among doctors — while encouragingly better than the prior year — remain higher than before COVID. For doctors caring for patients with long COVID, those suffering from the debilitating aftereffects of an infection, the sense of helplessness when recovery is elusive can also weigh heavily.

Overall, more female physicians reported feeling burned out and depressed. Experts attributed this gap to issues including fewer women in supportive leadership and mentoring roles, compensation disparities, fewer career advancement opportunities, and more responsibilities caring for children and elders.

Multiple international studies and reports have highlighted the surge in burnout experienced by physicians and healthcare workers globally during the pandemic. Even before COVID, studies found the suicide rate among male and female US physicians was higher than the general population and higher than any other profession, including the military. The risk among female physicians, in particular, was 250%-400% higher.

“That’s really, on average, one a day, and that’s really unacceptable. No one should die by suicide, but a physician who knows the risks and knows that, should never do that,” said Dr. Desai about suicides overall among doctors.

The story of Lorna Breen had rattled Dr. Desai. Dr. Breen was a Manhattan physician who died by suicide in April 2020 after grappling with the city’s devastating first wave and then contracting COVID-19 herself. While Dr. Desai did not have thoughts of suicide, he was facing his own battles. Those experiences and the stigma around mental health prompted him to write his book, Burning Out on the Covid Front Lines: A Doctor’s Memoir of Fatherhood, Race and Perseverance in the Pandemic, with the hope that it can help others like him.
 

Mental Health Stigma

But despite the body of research and growing awareness toward addressing mental health among physicians, almost four in 10 doctors are wary of revealing their personal struggles.

More than half of those surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report said they had not consulted a mental health professional before and would not do so going forward either. The fear of tarnishing their reputation or even losing their license keeps doctors silent. Advocates and groups like the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation are pushing for hospitals and healthcare systems to remove and rephrase invasive and stigmatizing language around mental health in licensure, credentialing, or insurance applications.
 

Burnout Triggers: Systemic Problems, Social Tensions

Burnout can make a person feel “depleted and used up” and is characterized by extreme tiredness, low energy, frustration about work, emotional distance or numbness, and difficulty with concentration, responsibilities, or creativity. It can make an individual feel helpless, alone, defeated, cynical, and without purpose and can also cause physical symptoms such as headaches, loss of appetite, insomnia, and body aches. Unaddressed, it can lead to depression, anxiety, and a variety of physical health issues.

“We can still be highly functional and not okay,” said Dr. Desai.

For doctors, burnout often builds over time from large and small systemic problems and inefficiencies, multiplied by a dozen or more patients each day: Not enough time for documentation, complicated paperwork, navigating byzantine health and insurance systems, and hitting roadblocks. The administrative work, combined with an enormous patient load, and staffing and resource shortages create barriers to care and cuts into the amount of time they can spend providing actual care.

These existing problems worsened as patients with COVID overwhelmed hospitals and clinics. At the same time, healthcare workers worried about caring for the sick, getting infected themselves, or having multiple staff falling ill at once. As each surge came and went, backlash, hostility, abuse, and even violence toward healthcare workers also increased. The discrimination some medical staff were subjected to compounded the burnout.

“When we’re not getting the support we need as physicians and healthcare workers, that adds to burnout, and I saw that in my colleagues,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Impact of Burnout

At the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City, doctors grapple with feelings of helplessness in caring for patients with long COVID who show little sign of recovery. That emotional toll can also be difficult, said director Zijian Chen, MD, who helped launch the clinic in May 2020.

“Sometimes you’re faced with patients who you’re trying to do everything for, but they’re not just not getting better,” said Dr. Chen. “It’s really frustrating because we want everybody to get better. So, there’s that lack of fulfillment there that can cause a sense of burnout.”

While the worst outcomes and death rates initially brought on by acute infections have lessened, long COVID clinics exemplify some of the ongoing challenges within healthcare. Many operate with insufficient financial and staffing resources despite wait-lists and a steady flow of new and returning patients. Even with the demand, a number of these clinics have shuttered, leaving patients without access to much-needed medical help.

“There are clinicians who are burning out. That is definitely something that I’ve seen,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas.

“[It] takes a lot of resources for a successful long COVID clinic. A lot of special funding may be drying up and couple that with clinicians burning out, then they’re going to shut their doors.”

And it’s not just long COVID clinics. Data have shown an overall exodus in healthcare, especially during the pandemic. One study found burnout was one of the “most impactful” predictors of a physician’s intention to leave the profession during the pandemic. The loss of talent and skills during a major health crisis can put the entire system under stress, with patients ultimately suffering from poorer care.

“Healthcare system fragility and the chaos is far worse than it was before. We are continuing to be forced to do more with less,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Alleviating Burnout

While it is difficult to assess whether burnout from the pandemic is transient, experts say this is an opportunity for health institutions to learn from these experiences and implement policies and actions that can help reduce the mental health strain on staff. One study found that changes made by organizations had a bigger positive impact on reducing burnout than individual changes.

Advocates say more support staff, more work flexibility, and higher compensation would significantly ease the burden that drives burnout and depression.

In addition, half the physicians surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report felt their employers were not acknowledging how pervasive burnout is at their workplace. Having a trusted peer or leader set an example by sharing his or her own challenging experiences and saying it›s time to address these struggles can be an enormously validating step forward, said Dr. Desai. Acknowledging his own difficulties was not only a huge weight off his shoulders but also helped surpris colleagues who sought him out for counsel.

“I’m not suggesting everybody get on medication,” he said. “But talking to a therapist, acknowledging there’s issues, restructuring your life to realize something’s off, and just knowing that you’re not alone? That’s huge.”

Dr. Desai said he still faces personal challenges but is in a much better place, doing well at work and at home. He talks to a therapist, is taking medication, and has developed better coping mechanisms. He is spending more time with his family, detaching for a few hours from work-related emails, learning to draw boundaries and say no, and trying to be more present and “intentional” in connecting with colleagues and patients.

“It’s okay to not be okay,” said Dr. Desai. “It’s okay to be vulnerable and acknowledge when we can’t do more.”

Are you in a crisis? Call or text 988 or text TALK to 741741. For immediate support for healthcare professionals, as well as resources for institutions and organizations, visit: afsp.org/suicide-prevention-for-healthcare-professionals/#facts-about-mental-health-and-suicide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dhaval Desai, MD, was teaching his 4-year-old to ride a bike after another exhausting shift at the hospital during the summer after the first COVID-19 surge. He was putting on a happy face and forcing out a “Yay!” he did not feel. The pandemic had taken its toll, and he just wanted to lie down and be alone. Realizing that he was “scraping to find joy” was when he knew something was wrong.

“I was giving, giving, giving at work a lot, and I had little left to give at home,” said Dr. Desai, director of hospital medicine at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

At work, he worried about his wife managing two kids — including a newborn — during the pandemic. At home, he stressed about work and the crush of patients with COVID the hospital was grappling to handle. He was exhausted, resentful, and angry, and it was jeopardizing what mattered most to him: His home life.

“It was all colliding…I realized, OK, I’m struggling,” he said.

Dr. Desai is one of thousands of physicians across the United States who have experienced burnout and depression, exacerbated by the pandemic. After 4 years, the impact is still being felt. Medscape’s 2024 annual report on this issue found that burnout and depression among doctors — while encouragingly better than the prior year — remain higher than before COVID. For doctors caring for patients with long COVID, those suffering from the debilitating aftereffects of an infection, the sense of helplessness when recovery is elusive can also weigh heavily.

Overall, more female physicians reported feeling burned out and depressed. Experts attributed this gap to issues including fewer women in supportive leadership and mentoring roles, compensation disparities, fewer career advancement opportunities, and more responsibilities caring for children and elders.

Multiple international studies and reports have highlighted the surge in burnout experienced by physicians and healthcare workers globally during the pandemic. Even before COVID, studies found the suicide rate among male and female US physicians was higher than the general population and higher than any other profession, including the military. The risk among female physicians, in particular, was 250%-400% higher.

“That’s really, on average, one a day, and that’s really unacceptable. No one should die by suicide, but a physician who knows the risks and knows that, should never do that,” said Dr. Desai about suicides overall among doctors.

The story of Lorna Breen had rattled Dr. Desai. Dr. Breen was a Manhattan physician who died by suicide in April 2020 after grappling with the city’s devastating first wave and then contracting COVID-19 herself. While Dr. Desai did not have thoughts of suicide, he was facing his own battles. Those experiences and the stigma around mental health prompted him to write his book, Burning Out on the Covid Front Lines: A Doctor’s Memoir of Fatherhood, Race and Perseverance in the Pandemic, with the hope that it can help others like him.
 

Mental Health Stigma

But despite the body of research and growing awareness toward addressing mental health among physicians, almost four in 10 doctors are wary of revealing their personal struggles.

More than half of those surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report said they had not consulted a mental health professional before and would not do so going forward either. The fear of tarnishing their reputation or even losing their license keeps doctors silent. Advocates and groups like the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation are pushing for hospitals and healthcare systems to remove and rephrase invasive and stigmatizing language around mental health in licensure, credentialing, or insurance applications.
 

Burnout Triggers: Systemic Problems, Social Tensions

Burnout can make a person feel “depleted and used up” and is characterized by extreme tiredness, low energy, frustration about work, emotional distance or numbness, and difficulty with concentration, responsibilities, or creativity. It can make an individual feel helpless, alone, defeated, cynical, and without purpose and can also cause physical symptoms such as headaches, loss of appetite, insomnia, and body aches. Unaddressed, it can lead to depression, anxiety, and a variety of physical health issues.

“We can still be highly functional and not okay,” said Dr. Desai.

For doctors, burnout often builds over time from large and small systemic problems and inefficiencies, multiplied by a dozen or more patients each day: Not enough time for documentation, complicated paperwork, navigating byzantine health and insurance systems, and hitting roadblocks. The administrative work, combined with an enormous patient load, and staffing and resource shortages create barriers to care and cuts into the amount of time they can spend providing actual care.

These existing problems worsened as patients with COVID overwhelmed hospitals and clinics. At the same time, healthcare workers worried about caring for the sick, getting infected themselves, or having multiple staff falling ill at once. As each surge came and went, backlash, hostility, abuse, and even violence toward healthcare workers also increased. The discrimination some medical staff were subjected to compounded the burnout.

“When we’re not getting the support we need as physicians and healthcare workers, that adds to burnout, and I saw that in my colleagues,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Impact of Burnout

At the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City, doctors grapple with feelings of helplessness in caring for patients with long COVID who show little sign of recovery. That emotional toll can also be difficult, said director Zijian Chen, MD, who helped launch the clinic in May 2020.

“Sometimes you’re faced with patients who you’re trying to do everything for, but they’re not just not getting better,” said Dr. Chen. “It’s really frustrating because we want everybody to get better. So, there’s that lack of fulfillment there that can cause a sense of burnout.”

While the worst outcomes and death rates initially brought on by acute infections have lessened, long COVID clinics exemplify some of the ongoing challenges within healthcare. Many operate with insufficient financial and staffing resources despite wait-lists and a steady flow of new and returning patients. Even with the demand, a number of these clinics have shuttered, leaving patients without access to much-needed medical help.

“There are clinicians who are burning out. That is definitely something that I’ve seen,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas.

“[It] takes a lot of resources for a successful long COVID clinic. A lot of special funding may be drying up and couple that with clinicians burning out, then they’re going to shut their doors.”

And it’s not just long COVID clinics. Data have shown an overall exodus in healthcare, especially during the pandemic. One study found burnout was one of the “most impactful” predictors of a physician’s intention to leave the profession during the pandemic. The loss of talent and skills during a major health crisis can put the entire system under stress, with patients ultimately suffering from poorer care.

“Healthcare system fragility and the chaos is far worse than it was before. We are continuing to be forced to do more with less,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Alleviating Burnout

While it is difficult to assess whether burnout from the pandemic is transient, experts say this is an opportunity for health institutions to learn from these experiences and implement policies and actions that can help reduce the mental health strain on staff. One study found that changes made by organizations had a bigger positive impact on reducing burnout than individual changes.

Advocates say more support staff, more work flexibility, and higher compensation would significantly ease the burden that drives burnout and depression.

In addition, half the physicians surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report felt their employers were not acknowledging how pervasive burnout is at their workplace. Having a trusted peer or leader set an example by sharing his or her own challenging experiences and saying it›s time to address these struggles can be an enormously validating step forward, said Dr. Desai. Acknowledging his own difficulties was not only a huge weight off his shoulders but also helped surpris colleagues who sought him out for counsel.

“I’m not suggesting everybody get on medication,” he said. “But talking to a therapist, acknowledging there’s issues, restructuring your life to realize something’s off, and just knowing that you’re not alone? That’s huge.”

Dr. Desai said he still faces personal challenges but is in a much better place, doing well at work and at home. He talks to a therapist, is taking medication, and has developed better coping mechanisms. He is spending more time with his family, detaching for a few hours from work-related emails, learning to draw boundaries and say no, and trying to be more present and “intentional” in connecting with colleagues and patients.

“It’s okay to not be okay,” said Dr. Desai. “It’s okay to be vulnerable and acknowledge when we can’t do more.”

Are you in a crisis? Call or text 988 or text TALK to 741741. For immediate support for healthcare professionals, as well as resources for institutions and organizations, visit: afsp.org/suicide-prevention-for-healthcare-professionals/#facts-about-mental-health-and-suicide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dhaval Desai, MD, was teaching his 4-year-old to ride a bike after another exhausting shift at the hospital during the summer after the first COVID-19 surge. He was putting on a happy face and forcing out a “Yay!” he did not feel. The pandemic had taken its toll, and he just wanted to lie down and be alone. Realizing that he was “scraping to find joy” was when he knew something was wrong.

“I was giving, giving, giving at work a lot, and I had little left to give at home,” said Dr. Desai, director of hospital medicine at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

At work, he worried about his wife managing two kids — including a newborn — during the pandemic. At home, he stressed about work and the crush of patients with COVID the hospital was grappling to handle. He was exhausted, resentful, and angry, and it was jeopardizing what mattered most to him: His home life.

“It was all colliding…I realized, OK, I’m struggling,” he said.

Dr. Desai is one of thousands of physicians across the United States who have experienced burnout and depression, exacerbated by the pandemic. After 4 years, the impact is still being felt. Medscape’s 2024 annual report on this issue found that burnout and depression among doctors — while encouragingly better than the prior year — remain higher than before COVID. For doctors caring for patients with long COVID, those suffering from the debilitating aftereffects of an infection, the sense of helplessness when recovery is elusive can also weigh heavily.

Overall, more female physicians reported feeling burned out and depressed. Experts attributed this gap to issues including fewer women in supportive leadership and mentoring roles, compensation disparities, fewer career advancement opportunities, and more responsibilities caring for children and elders.

Multiple international studies and reports have highlighted the surge in burnout experienced by physicians and healthcare workers globally during the pandemic. Even before COVID, studies found the suicide rate among male and female US physicians was higher than the general population and higher than any other profession, including the military. The risk among female physicians, in particular, was 250%-400% higher.

“That’s really, on average, one a day, and that’s really unacceptable. No one should die by suicide, but a physician who knows the risks and knows that, should never do that,” said Dr. Desai about suicides overall among doctors.

The story of Lorna Breen had rattled Dr. Desai. Dr. Breen was a Manhattan physician who died by suicide in April 2020 after grappling with the city’s devastating first wave and then contracting COVID-19 herself. While Dr. Desai did not have thoughts of suicide, he was facing his own battles. Those experiences and the stigma around mental health prompted him to write his book, Burning Out on the Covid Front Lines: A Doctor’s Memoir of Fatherhood, Race and Perseverance in the Pandemic, with the hope that it can help others like him.
 

Mental Health Stigma

But despite the body of research and growing awareness toward addressing mental health among physicians, almost four in 10 doctors are wary of revealing their personal struggles.

More than half of those surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report said they had not consulted a mental health professional before and would not do so going forward either. The fear of tarnishing their reputation or even losing their license keeps doctors silent. Advocates and groups like the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation are pushing for hospitals and healthcare systems to remove and rephrase invasive and stigmatizing language around mental health in licensure, credentialing, or insurance applications.
 

Burnout Triggers: Systemic Problems, Social Tensions

Burnout can make a person feel “depleted and used up” and is characterized by extreme tiredness, low energy, frustration about work, emotional distance or numbness, and difficulty with concentration, responsibilities, or creativity. It can make an individual feel helpless, alone, defeated, cynical, and without purpose and can also cause physical symptoms such as headaches, loss of appetite, insomnia, and body aches. Unaddressed, it can lead to depression, anxiety, and a variety of physical health issues.

“We can still be highly functional and not okay,” said Dr. Desai.

For doctors, burnout often builds over time from large and small systemic problems and inefficiencies, multiplied by a dozen or more patients each day: Not enough time for documentation, complicated paperwork, navigating byzantine health and insurance systems, and hitting roadblocks. The administrative work, combined with an enormous patient load, and staffing and resource shortages create barriers to care and cuts into the amount of time they can spend providing actual care.

These existing problems worsened as patients with COVID overwhelmed hospitals and clinics. At the same time, healthcare workers worried about caring for the sick, getting infected themselves, or having multiple staff falling ill at once. As each surge came and went, backlash, hostility, abuse, and even violence toward healthcare workers also increased. The discrimination some medical staff were subjected to compounded the burnout.

“When we’re not getting the support we need as physicians and healthcare workers, that adds to burnout, and I saw that in my colleagues,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Impact of Burnout

At the Mount Sinai Center for Post-COVID Care in New York City, doctors grapple with feelings of helplessness in caring for patients with long COVID who show little sign of recovery. That emotional toll can also be difficult, said director Zijian Chen, MD, who helped launch the clinic in May 2020.

“Sometimes you’re faced with patients who you’re trying to do everything for, but they’re not just not getting better,” said Dr. Chen. “It’s really frustrating because we want everybody to get better. So, there’s that lack of fulfillment there that can cause a sense of burnout.”

While the worst outcomes and death rates initially brought on by acute infections have lessened, long COVID clinics exemplify some of the ongoing challenges within healthcare. Many operate with insufficient financial and staffing resources despite wait-lists and a steady flow of new and returning patients. Even with the demand, a number of these clinics have shuttered, leaving patients without access to much-needed medical help.

“There are clinicians who are burning out. That is definitely something that I’ve seen,” said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, a professor and chair of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas.

“[It] takes a lot of resources for a successful long COVID clinic. A lot of special funding may be drying up and couple that with clinicians burning out, then they’re going to shut their doors.”

And it’s not just long COVID clinics. Data have shown an overall exodus in healthcare, especially during the pandemic. One study found burnout was one of the “most impactful” predictors of a physician’s intention to leave the profession during the pandemic. The loss of talent and skills during a major health crisis can put the entire system under stress, with patients ultimately suffering from poorer care.

“Healthcare system fragility and the chaos is far worse than it was before. We are continuing to be forced to do more with less,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Alleviating Burnout

While it is difficult to assess whether burnout from the pandemic is transient, experts say this is an opportunity for health institutions to learn from these experiences and implement policies and actions that can help reduce the mental health strain on staff. One study found that changes made by organizations had a bigger positive impact on reducing burnout than individual changes.

Advocates say more support staff, more work flexibility, and higher compensation would significantly ease the burden that drives burnout and depression.

In addition, half the physicians surveyed in the Medscape Medical News report felt their employers were not acknowledging how pervasive burnout is at their workplace. Having a trusted peer or leader set an example by sharing his or her own challenging experiences and saying it›s time to address these struggles can be an enormously validating step forward, said Dr. Desai. Acknowledging his own difficulties was not only a huge weight off his shoulders but also helped surpris colleagues who sought him out for counsel.

“I’m not suggesting everybody get on medication,” he said. “But talking to a therapist, acknowledging there’s issues, restructuring your life to realize something’s off, and just knowing that you’re not alone? That’s huge.”

Dr. Desai said he still faces personal challenges but is in a much better place, doing well at work and at home. He talks to a therapist, is taking medication, and has developed better coping mechanisms. He is spending more time with his family, detaching for a few hours from work-related emails, learning to draw boundaries and say no, and trying to be more present and “intentional” in connecting with colleagues and patients.

“It’s okay to not be okay,” said Dr. Desai. “It’s okay to be vulnerable and acknowledge when we can’t do more.”

Are you in a crisis? Call or text 988 or text TALK to 741741. For immediate support for healthcare professionals, as well as resources for institutions and organizations, visit: afsp.org/suicide-prevention-for-healthcare-professionals/#facts-about-mental-health-and-suicide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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 new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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 new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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 .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.