Clinical Psychiatry News

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Deaths caused by both substance use (SU) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) increased substantially in the United States between 1999 and 2019, with the most pronounced rise among women, American Indians, younger people, rural residents, and users of cannabis and psychostimulants, results of new research suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database and using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, researchers collected data on deaths within the United States where both SU and CVD (SU+CVD) were a contributing or an underlying cause and gathered information on location of death (medical facility, home, hospice, nursing home/long-term care facility), demographics (sex, race/ethnicity, age), and region (urban-rural, state).
• Researchers determined crude and age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 population, identified trends in AAMR using annual percent change (APC) and calculated the weighted average of APCs (AAPCs).
• Between 1999 and 2019, there were 636,572 deaths related to CVD+SU, 75.6% of which were among men and 70.6% among non-Hispanic White individuals, with 65% related to alcohol, and where location of death was available, 47.7% occurred in medical facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall SU+CVD-related AAMR from 1999 to 2019 was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.3-14.3) per 100,000 individuals, with the rate being higher in men (22.5) than in women (6.8) and highest in American Indians or Alaska Natives (37.7) compared with other races/ethnicities.
• Rural areas had higher SU+CVD-related AAMR (15.2; 95% CI, 15.1-15.3) than urban areas, with the District of Columbia having the highest AAMR geographically (25.4), individuals aged 55-69 years having the highest rate agewise (25.1), and alcohol accounting for the highest rate (9.09) among substance types.
• Temporal trends show that the overall SU+CVD-related AAMR increased from 9.9 in 1999 to 21.4 in 2019, a rate that started accelerating in 2012, with an AAPC of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.7-4.3); increases were across all ethnicities and age groups and were particularly pronounced among women (4.8%; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1).
• Cannabis had the highest AAPC of all substances (12.7%), but stimulants had an APC of 21.4 (95% CI, 20.0-22.8) from 2009 to 2019, a period during which stimulants were the fastest-growing substance abuse category.

IN PRACTICE:

These new results identify high-risk groups, which “is crucial for prioritizing preventive measures aiming to reduce substance use and cardiovascular disease-related mortality in these populations,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Abdul Mannan Khan Minhas, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, and Jakrin Kewcharoen, MD, Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California, were co-first authors of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Cognitive function in children aged 18 months to 10 years is associated with the enrichment or depletion of specific species of gut microbes, new research reveals.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers analyzed the relationship between the microbiome, neuroanatomy, and cognition (ie, the microbiome-gut-brain axis) in stool samples from 381 neurotypically developing children aged 40 days to 10 years (mean age, 2 years and 2 months).
• Stool samples were taken within a week of age-appropriate cognitive and behavioral assessments.
• Shotgun metagenomic sequencing was used to analyze the DNA of the organisms present in each sample.
• MRI data were obtained, with machine models then used to predict whether participants’ brain region volume was influenced by microbial profiles.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Researchers found increasing variation in microbial species and microbial gene functions in children older than 18 months, and the overall variation was significantly associated with variation in cognitive function scores.
• Several microbial species were significantly enriched in children with higher cognitive function scores (eg, Alistipes obesi, Asaccharobacter celatus, Eubacterium eligens, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii), with Sutterella wadsworthensis being the only species significantly negatively associated with these scores.
• Machine models indicated that taxa key in predicting cognitive function were similarly important for predicting individual brain regions and subscales of cognitive function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the gut-brain-microbiome axis in early life is particularly important since differences or interventions in early life can have outsized and longer-term consequences than those at later ages,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kevin S. Bonham, PhD, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, was published online on December 22, 2023, in Science Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of multiple age-appropriate cognitive assessments enabled analysis across multiple developmental periods, but test-retest reliability and differences between test administrators may have introduced noise into these observations, particularly in the youngest children. The study period overlapped with the beginning of the pandemic, and score reductions due to the lockdowns were more pronounced in some age groups than during the recruitment period. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and Wellcome: LEAP 1kD. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) suggest that a daily multivitamin may help protect the aging brain. However, at least one expert has concerns about the study’s methodology and, as a result, the interpretation of its findings. 

The meta-analysis of three separate cognition studies provides “strong and consistent evidence that taking a daily multivitamin, containing more than 20 essential micronutrients, can help prevent memory loss and slow down cognitive aging,” study investigator Chirag Vyas, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization. 

“We are not now recommending multivitamin use, but the evidence is compelling that supports the promise of multivitamins to help prevent cognitive decline,” Dr. Vyas said. 

The new data, from the cognitive substudies of COSMOS, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
 

Clinically Meaningful Benefit?

To recap, COSMOS was a 2 x 2 factorial trial of coca extract (500 mg/d flavanols) and/or a daily commercial multivitamin-mineral (MVM) supplement for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention among more than 21,000 US adults aged 60 years or older. 

Neither the cocoa extract nor the MVM supplement had a significant impact on cancer or cardiovascular disease events.

COMOS-Mind was a substudy of 2262 participants aged 65 or older without dementia who completed telephone-based cognitive assessments at baseline and annually for 3 years. 

As previously reported by this news organization in COSMOS-Mind, there was no cognitive benefit of daily cocoa extract, but daily MVM supplementation was associated with improved global cognition, episodic memory, and executive function. However, the difference in global cognitive function between MVM and placebo was small, with a mean 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at 3 years. 

COSMOS-Web was a substudy of 3562 original participants who were evaluated annually for 3 years using an internet-based battery of neuropsychological tests. 

In this analysis, those taking the MVM supplement performed better on a test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words); they were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. However, they did not improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition.

The new data are from COSMOS-Clinic, an analysis of 573 participants who completed in-person cognitive assessments. 

COSMOS-Clinic showed a modest benefit of MVM, compared with placebo, on global cognition over 2 years (mean difference, 0.06 SD units [SU]), with a significantly more favorable change in episodic memory (mean difference, 0.12 SU) but not in executive function/attention (mean difference, 0.04 SU), the researchers reported. 

They also conducted a meta-analysis based on the three separate cognitive substudies, with 5200 nonoverlapping COSMOS participants. 

The results showed “clear evidence” of MVM benefits on global cognition (mean difference, 0.07 SU; P = .0009) and episodic memory (mean difference, 0.06 SU; P =.0007), they reported, with the magnitude of effect on global cognition equivalent to reducing cognitive aging by 2 years.

In a statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who led the overall COSMOS trial, said that “the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive aging in three separate placebo-controlled studies in COSMOS is exciting and further supports the promise of multivitamins as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults.”
 

Not a Meta-analysis?

In an interview with this news organization, Christopher Labos, MD CM, MSc, a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal, Canada, who wasn’t involved in COSMOS, cautioned that the evidence to date on multivitamins for memory and brain health are “not all that impressive.”

Dr. Labos is a columnist for this news organization and previously has written about the COSMOS trial. 

He said it is important to note that this “meta-analysis of COSMOS data, strictly speaking, is not a meta-analysis” because the patients were all from the original COSMOS study without including any additional patients, “so you don’t have any more data than what you started with.

“The fact that the results are consistent with the original trial is not surprising. In fact, it would be concerning if they were not consistent because they’re the same population. They were just assessed differently — by phone, online, or in person,” Dr. Labos explained. 

“It is hard to tell what the benefit with multivitamins actually means in terms of hard clinical endpoints that matter to patients. Scoring a little bit better on a standardized test — I guess that’s a good thing, but does that mean you’re less likely to get dementia? I’m not sure we’re there yet,” he told this news organization. 

The bottom line, said Dr. Labos, is that “at this point, the evidence does not support recommending multivitamins purely for brain health. There is also a cost and potential downside associated with their use.”

Also weighing in on the new analyses from COSMOS, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, said while there are now “positive, large-scale, long-term studies that show that multivitamin-mineral supplementation for older adults may slow cognitive aging, the Alzheimer’s Association is not ready to recommend widespread use of a multivitamin supplement to reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults.

“Independent confirmatory studies are needed in larger, more diverse, and representative study populations. COSMOS-Clinic, for example, had less than 2% non-White in the multivitamin group and 5% non-White in the placebo group. It is critical that future treatments and preventions are effective in all populations,” Dr. Sexton told this news organization.

She noted that multivitamin supplements are “generally easy to find and relatively affordable. With confirmation, these promising findings have the potential to significantly impact public health — improving brain health, lowering healthcare costs, reducing caregiver burden — especially among older adults.”

The Alzheimer’s Association, Dr. Sexton said, “envisions a future where there are multiple treatments available that address the disease in multiple ways — like heart disease and cancer — and that can be combined into powerful combination therapies, in conjunction with brain-healthy guidelines for lifestyle, like diet and physical activity.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to evaluate whether lifestyle interventions that target multiple risk factors can protect cognition in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

COSMOS-Clinic and the cognition studies in the meta-analysis were supported by investigator-initiated grants from Mars Edge, a segment of Mars Inc., and the National Institutes of Health. Multivitamin and placebo tablets and packaging were donated by Pfizer, Inc Consumer Healthcare (now Haleon). Disclosures for the COSMOS investigators are available with the original article. Dr. Labos and Dr. Sexton have no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].