Clinician Reviews

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

The antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may prevent hospitalization and death in outpatients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

HconQ/ThinkStock

Results from the placebo-controlled, multisite, phase 3 TOGETHER trial showed that in COVID-19 outpatients at high risk for complications, hospitalizations were cut by 66% and deaths were reduced by 91% in those who tolerated fluvoxamine.

“Our trial has found that fluvoxamine, an inexpensive existing drug, reduces the need for advanced disease care in this high-risk population,” wrote the investigators, led by Gilmar Reis, MD, PhD, research division, Cardresearch, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

The findings were published online Oct. 27 in The Lancet Global Health.
 

Alternative mechanisms

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is an antidepressant commonly prescribed for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Besides its known effects on serotonin, the drug acts in other molecular pathways to dampen the production of inflammatory cytokines. Those alternative mechanisms are the ones believed to help patients with COVID-19, said coinvestigator Angela Reiersen, MD, child psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Based on cell culture and mouse studies showing effects of the molecule’s binding to the sigma-1 receptor in the endoplasmic reticulum, Dr. Reiersen came up with the idea of testing if fluvoxamine could keep COVID-19 from progressing in newly infected patients.

Dr. Reiersen and psychiatrist Eric Lenze, MD, also from Washington University, led the phase 2 trial that initially suggested fluvoxamine’s promise as an outpatient medication. They are coinvestigators on the new phase 3 adaptive platform trial called TOGETHER, which was conducted by an international team of investigators in Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

For this latest study, researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., partnered with the research clinic Cardresearch in Brazil to recruit unvaccinated, high-risk adults within 7 days of developing flu-like symptoms from COVID-19. They analyzed 1,497 newly symptomatic COVID-19 patients at 11 clinical sites in Brazil.

Patients entered the trial between January and August 2021 and were assigned to receive 100 mg fluvoxamine or placebo pills twice a day for 10 days. Investigators monitored participants through 28 days post treatment, noting whether complications developed requiring hospitalization or more than 6 hours of emergency care.

In the placebo group, 119 of 756 patients (15.7%) worsened to this extent. In comparison, 79 of 741 (10.7%) fluvoxamine-treated patients met these primary criteria. This represented a 32% reduction in hospitalizations and emergency visits.
 

Additional analysis requested

As Lancet Global Health reviewed these findings from the submitted manuscript, journal reviewers requested an additional “pre-protocol analysis” that was not specified in the trial’s original protocol. The request was to examine the subgroup of patients with good adherence (74% of treated group, 82% of placebo group).

Among these three quarters of patients who took at least 80% of their doses, benefits were better.

Fluvoxamine cut serious complications in this group by 66% and reduced mortality by 91%. In the placebo group, 12 people died compared with one who received the study drug.

Based on accumulating data, Dr. Reiersen said, some experts are recommending fluvoxamine for COVID-19 patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality from complications of the infection.

However, clinicians should note that the drug can cause side effects such as nausea, dizziness, and insomnia, she added. In addition, because it prevents the body from metabolizing caffeine, patients should limit their daily intake to half of a small cup of coffee or one can of soda or one tea while taking the drug.

Previous research has shown that fluvoxamine affects the metabolism of some drugs, such as theophylline, clozapine, olanzapine, and tizanidine.

Despite huge challenges with studying generic drugs as early COVID-19 treatment, the TOGETHER trial shows it is possible to produce quality evidence during a pandemic on a shoestring budget, noted co-principal investigator Edward Mills, PhD, professor in the department of health research methods, evidence, and impact at McMaster University.

To screen more than 12,000 patients and enroll 4,000 to test nine interventions, “our total budget was less than $8 million,” Dr. Mills said. The trial was funded by Fast Grants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
 

‘A $10 medicine’

Commenting on the findings, David Boulware, MD, MPH, an infectious disease physician-researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted fluvoxamine is “a $10 medicine that’s available and has a very good safety record.”

By comparison, a 5-day course of Merck’s antiviral molnupiravir, another oral drug that the company says can cut hospitalizations in COVID-19 outpatients, costs $700. However, the data have not been peer reviewed – and molnupiravir is not currently available and has unknown long-term safety implications, Dr. Boulware said.

Pharmaceutical companies typically spend tens of thousands of dollars on a trial evaluating a single drug, he noted.

In addition, the National Institutes of Health’s ACTIV-6 study, a nationwide trial on the effect of fluvoxamine and other repurposed generic drugs on thousands of COVID-19 outpatients, is a $110 million effort, according to Dr. Boulware, who cochairs its steering committee.

ACTIV-6 is currently enrolling outpatients with COVID-19 to test a lower dose of fluvoxamine, at 50 mg twice daily instead of the 100-mg dose used in the TOGETHER trial, as well as ivermectin and inhaled fluticasone. The COVID-OUT trial is also recruiting newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients to test various combinations of fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and the diabetes drug metformin.

Unanswered safety, efficacy questions

In an accompanying editorial in The Lancet Global Health, Otavio Berwanger, MD, cardiologist and clinical trialist, Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil, commends the investigators for rapidly generating evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, despite the important findings, “some questions related to efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for patients with COVID-19 remain open,” Dr. Berwanger wrote.

The effects of the drug on reducing both mortality and hospitalizations also “still need addressing,” he noted.

“In addition, it remains to be established whether fluvoxamine has an additive effect to other therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and budesonide, and what is the optimal fluvoxamine therapeutic scheme,” wrote Dr. Berwanger.

In an interview, he noted that 74% of the Brazil population have currently received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 52% have received two doses. In addition, deaths have gone down from 4,000 per day during the March-April second wave to about 400 per day. “That is still unfortunate and far from ideal,” he said. In total, they have had about 600,000 deaths because of COVID-19.

Asked whether public health authorities are now recommending fluvoxamine as an early treatment for COVID-19 based on the TOGETHER trial data, Dr. Berwanger answered, “Not yet.

“I believe medical and scientific societies will need to critically appraise the manuscript in order to inform their decisions and recommendations. This interesting trial adds another important piece of information in this regard,” he said.

Dr. Reiersen and Dr. Lenze are inventors on a patent application related to methods for treating COVID-19, which was filed by Washington University. Dr. Mills reports no relevant financial relationships, as does Dr. Boulware – except that the TOGETHER trial funders are also funding the University of Minnesota COVID-OUT trial. Dr. Berwanger reports having received research grants outside of the submitted work that were paid to his institution by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A number of fatal child poisonings have been linked to common cough and cold medications, according to a report.

The Pediatric Cough and Cold Safety Surveillance System, which tracks fatal child poisonings, has identified 40 such deaths in recent years and raised particular concern about medications containing diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine that can be sedating.

“There is little evidence that cough and cold medicines make children feel better or reduce their symptoms, but there is evidence they can suffer harm,” says Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, medical director of the Poison Control Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In recent years, the FDA has advised labeling changes and recommended that cough and cold medications not be given to children younger than 2. Drugmakers also voluntarily relabeled these products to state “do not use in children under 4 years of age.”

Compared to older children or adults, young children have a different physiology when they breathe, so any product containing antihistamines can be a danger to little kids, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

But a recent survey shows about half of American parents gave their child cough and cold medication the last time they were ill, Dr. Osterhoudt says. And the findings suggest that cough and cold medications are in homes where children might find them.

Using the new evidence from the national surveillance system, investigators set up an expert panel to review the results. They found that most of the deaths were in children under the age of 2. The results were reported in the October issue of Pediatrics.

In seven instances, death followed the intentional use of medication to sedate the child, reports lead investigator Laurie Seidel Halmo, MD, from Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“It’s not uncommon for parents to use sedatives like diphenhydramine to make their child sleepy for activities like air travel,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

While antihistamines can be sedating, “an overdose of antihistamines like diphenhydramine can paradoxically become a stimulant,” having the opposite effect, he explains.

Adults and teens who take overdoses will sometimes become delirious, hallucinate, and have a racing heart.

But in young children, “if not careful with your dosing, you could actually give too much and create this stimulant activity,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

In six other cases, the cough and cold medication was given to murder the child, the investigators reported.

The findings are “concerning,” especially with “more than one-half of nontherapeutic intent cases determined to be malicious in nature,” Michele Burns, MD, from Boston Children’s Hospital, and Madeline Renny, MD, from the Grossman School of Medicine in New York, wrote in a commentary with the report.

This important fatality review shows that despite safety efforts, young children remain at risk for death, they report.

The investigators point out that labeling changes do not seem to have protected vulnerable children, and they recommend that doctors educate parents and caregivers about the risk of cough and cold medications.

Dr. Halmo and her team also recommend that the medical community and child welfare advocates be on the lookout for medication use as a source of child abuse.

At home, preventing accidental ingestion could go along with other practices already ingrained in the minds of many, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

“We know to change the clocks in the spring and fall and make sure your smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector has fresh batteries, but maybe it’s also a good time to look at medicines in the house.”

In other words, after you change the clocks, it’s time to take inventory of medications around the house, and if they’re no longer in use, safely dispose of them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics offers guidelines on the safe home storage of medications to keep them out of reach of children and the use of protective caps on drugs.

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

A number of fatal child poisonings have been linked to common cough and cold medications, according to a report.

The Pediatric Cough and Cold Safety Surveillance System, which tracks fatal child poisonings, has identified 40 such deaths in recent years and raised particular concern about medications containing diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine that can be sedating.

“There is little evidence that cough and cold medicines make children feel better or reduce their symptoms, but there is evidence they can suffer harm,” says Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, medical director of the Poison Control Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In recent years, the FDA has advised labeling changes and recommended that cough and cold medications not be given to children younger than 2. Drugmakers also voluntarily relabeled these products to state “do not use in children under 4 years of age.”

Compared to older children or adults, young children have a different physiology when they breathe, so any product containing antihistamines can be a danger to little kids, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

But a recent survey shows about half of American parents gave their child cough and cold medication the last time they were ill, Dr. Osterhoudt says. And the findings suggest that cough and cold medications are in homes where children might find them.

Using the new evidence from the national surveillance system, investigators set up an expert panel to review the results. They found that most of the deaths were in children under the age of 2. The results were reported in the October issue of Pediatrics.

In seven instances, death followed the intentional use of medication to sedate the child, reports lead investigator Laurie Seidel Halmo, MD, from Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“It’s not uncommon for parents to use sedatives like diphenhydramine to make their child sleepy for activities like air travel,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

While antihistamines can be sedating, “an overdose of antihistamines like diphenhydramine can paradoxically become a stimulant,” having the opposite effect, he explains.

Adults and teens who take overdoses will sometimes become delirious, hallucinate, and have a racing heart.

But in young children, “if not careful with your dosing, you could actually give too much and create this stimulant activity,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

In six other cases, the cough and cold medication was given to murder the child, the investigators reported.

The findings are “concerning,” especially with “more than one-half of nontherapeutic intent cases determined to be malicious in nature,” Michele Burns, MD, from Boston Children’s Hospital, and Madeline Renny, MD, from the Grossman School of Medicine in New York, wrote in a commentary with the report.

This important fatality review shows that despite safety efforts, young children remain at risk for death, they report.

The investigators point out that labeling changes do not seem to have protected vulnerable children, and they recommend that doctors educate parents and caregivers about the risk of cough and cold medications.

Dr. Halmo and her team also recommend that the medical community and child welfare advocates be on the lookout for medication use as a source of child abuse.

At home, preventing accidental ingestion could go along with other practices already ingrained in the minds of many, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

“We know to change the clocks in the spring and fall and make sure your smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector has fresh batteries, but maybe it’s also a good time to look at medicines in the house.”

In other words, after you change the clocks, it’s time to take inventory of medications around the house, and if they’re no longer in use, safely dispose of them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics offers guidelines on the safe home storage of medications to keep them out of reach of children and the use of protective caps on drugs.

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

A number of fatal child poisonings have been linked to common cough and cold medications, according to a report.

The Pediatric Cough and Cold Safety Surveillance System, which tracks fatal child poisonings, has identified 40 such deaths in recent years and raised particular concern about medications containing diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine that can be sedating.

“There is little evidence that cough and cold medicines make children feel better or reduce their symptoms, but there is evidence they can suffer harm,” says Kevin Osterhoudt, MD, medical director of the Poison Control Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

In recent years, the FDA has advised labeling changes and recommended that cough and cold medications not be given to children younger than 2. Drugmakers also voluntarily relabeled these products to state “do not use in children under 4 years of age.”

Compared to older children or adults, young children have a different physiology when they breathe, so any product containing antihistamines can be a danger to little kids, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

But a recent survey shows about half of American parents gave their child cough and cold medication the last time they were ill, Dr. Osterhoudt says. And the findings suggest that cough and cold medications are in homes where children might find them.

Using the new evidence from the national surveillance system, investigators set up an expert panel to review the results. They found that most of the deaths were in children under the age of 2. The results were reported in the October issue of Pediatrics.

In seven instances, death followed the intentional use of medication to sedate the child, reports lead investigator Laurie Seidel Halmo, MD, from Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“It’s not uncommon for parents to use sedatives like diphenhydramine to make their child sleepy for activities like air travel,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

While antihistamines can be sedating, “an overdose of antihistamines like diphenhydramine can paradoxically become a stimulant,” having the opposite effect, he explains.

Adults and teens who take overdoses will sometimes become delirious, hallucinate, and have a racing heart.

But in young children, “if not careful with your dosing, you could actually give too much and create this stimulant activity,” Dr. Osterhoudt says.

In six other cases, the cough and cold medication was given to murder the child, the investigators reported.

The findings are “concerning,” especially with “more than one-half of nontherapeutic intent cases determined to be malicious in nature,” Michele Burns, MD, from Boston Children’s Hospital, and Madeline Renny, MD, from the Grossman School of Medicine in New York, wrote in a commentary with the report.

This important fatality review shows that despite safety efforts, young children remain at risk for death, they report.

The investigators point out that labeling changes do not seem to have protected vulnerable children, and they recommend that doctors educate parents and caregivers about the risk of cough and cold medications.

Dr. Halmo and her team also recommend that the medical community and child welfare advocates be on the lookout for medication use as a source of child abuse.

At home, preventing accidental ingestion could go along with other practices already ingrained in the minds of many, Dr. Osterhoudt says.

“We know to change the clocks in the spring and fall and make sure your smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector has fresh batteries, but maybe it’s also a good time to look at medicines in the house.”

In other words, after you change the clocks, it’s time to take inventory of medications around the house, and if they’re no longer in use, safely dispose of them.

The American Academy of Pediatrics offers guidelines on the safe home storage of medications to keep them out of reach of children and the use of protective caps on drugs.

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

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals

A “green” adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet could help improve insulin sensitivity and reduce visceral fat by increasing levels of ghrelin, the “hunger hormone,” new research suggests.

The current study is a new analysis of data from the randomized DIRECT-PLUS trial, which showed that the addition of green tea and substitution of red meat for a plant-based (Mankai) protein shake at dinner – dubbed the “green Mediterranean diet” – resulted in further improved cardiometabolic benefits compared with the traditional Mediterranean diet among people with baseline abdominal obesity and/or dyslipidemia, according to the researchers.

They specifically looked at ghrelin, nicknamed the “hunger hormone,” a neuropeptide mainly secreted by the gastric epithelium. It acts on the pituitary gland to release growth hormone. Ghrelin concentrations increase during fasting and decrease after eating. Lower levels are associated with insulin resistance and obesity.

Fasting ghrelin levels were elevated with weight loss, but those increases were associated with improved insulin sensitivity and regression of visceral adipose tissue even beyond weight loss.

Although the caloric restriction and weight loss were comparable with the two Mediterranean diets, the green Mediterranean diet group had double the increase in fasting ghrelin as the traditional Mediterranean diet group, the researchers point out in their report .
 

‘Hypothesis-generating’ study pushes many hot topic buttons

“This specific study is the first to show that ghrelin levels play an important role in metabolic adaptation to a dietary or lifestyle intervention and that ghrelin is an important player in the axis of adiposity, insulin resistance, and metabolic health,” lead researcher Gal Tsaban, MD, told this news organization.

The data partially explain some of the prior beneficial effects seen with the Green Mediterranean diet, even after adjustment for weight loss, he explained, noting that the revised version of the diet “could be considered as an alternative lifestyle intervention with possible metabolic benefits even beyond the Mediterranean diet, which is what we currently recommend for patients.”

Asked for comment, Christopher Gardner, PhD, was not as enthusiastic.

He took issue with the fact that ghrelin wasn’t a primary or even a prespecified secondary outcome of the DIRECT-PLUS trial and because the specific plant-based ingredients of the green Mediterranean diet used in the study may not be widely available or desirable and therefore limit the study’s generalizability.

Dr. Gardner, who is director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, California, also said: “They’re tying lots of interesting things together. The Mediterranean diet is a cool thing, ghrelin is a cool thing, and insulin resistance is hugely important in this day and age, even though we don’t all agree on how to measure it.”

“But it gets tough as you try to link them all together for an exploratory outcome. ... To me it’s an interesting hypothesis-generating study that pushes a lot of interesting buttons that are hot topics in the field.”
 

Green Mediterranean diet led to higher ghrelin, metabolic benefits

In DIRECT-PLUS, a total of 294 adults (88% men) older than 30 years of age with abdominal obesity (waist circumference >102 cm for men or >88 cm for women), or dyslipidemia (triglycerides >150 mg/dL and HDL-cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL for men or ≤50 mg/dL for women) were included. Half had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.

They were randomized to one of three diets: a diet based on standard healthy dietary guidelines; a traditional Mediterranean diet low in simple carbohydrates, rich in vegetables, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb and 28 g/day of walnuts; or the Green-Mediterranean diet, including 3-4 cups/day of green tea and 100 g/day of a green shake made from the Mankai strain of Wolffia globosa (also known as duckweed) replacing dinner, and 28 g/day of walnuts.

The Green Mediterranean diet included 800 mg more polyphenols than the traditional Mediterranean diet. Both were equally calorie-restricted, at about 1,500-1,800 kcal/day for men and 1,200-1,400 kcal/day for women. All three groups were instructed to engage in regular physical activity and were given free gym memberships.

The retention rate was 98.3% after 6 months and 89.8% after 18 months.

Weight loss was similar between the two Mediterranean diet groups (2.9% and 3.9% for the traditional and green versions, respectively) compared with the standard healthy diet (0.6%) (P < .05 for both Mediterranean diet groups vs. control).

After 6 months, fasting ghrelin increased in the traditional (8.0%; P = .015) and green (10.5%; P = 0.031) Mediterranean groups versus baseline, with no significant change in the control group.

By 18 months, fasting ghrelin was significantly greater compared with baseline only in the green Mediterranean group (P = .012).

Because the differences in fasting ghrelin trajectories were only significant in men – likely due to the small sample size of women – a subsequent 18-month analysis was limited to the men. In a multivariate model adjusted for age, intervention group, baseline biomarker values, and 18-month weight changes, the 18-month change in fasting ghrelin remained a significant predictor for changes in A1c and homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; P = .022).

Because weight loss remained the most significant predictor of improved insulin resistance, a further analysis examined the association between changes in fasting ghrelin levels with changes in the fraction of insulin resistance marker that were not attributed to weight loss, per se. With the other adjustments, fasting ghrelin was associated with residual reductions in A1c (P = .003), HOMA-IR (P = .021), increased HDL-cholesterol (P = .024), and relative visceral adipose tissue loss (P = .003).  
 

No specific product needed to push Mediterranean diet towards vegan

Dr. Tsaban, a nutritional researcher and cardiologist at Ben-Gurion University and Soroka University Medical Center, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, said the Mankai shake is commonly consumed in Israel but is also available worldwide. The study participants, all employees at an isolated nuclear research facility in the Negev, were particularly motivated. “They didn’t have a satiety problem with the drink. It made them very full,” he said. The manufacturer supplied the shakes but didn’t fund the study, he added.

However, Dr. Tsaban said that the “green Mediterranean diet” doesn’t depend on specific products.

Rather, “the concept is to push the Mediterranean diet a bit further and to replace the animal-based protein with vegetable-based protein, to shift your dietary habits towards a more vegan lifestyle. It’s not completely vegan, but it’s trending there. ... Our main goal was to increase the polyphenol intake, the antioxidant intake from vegetables. ... I think it can be replicated.”

Dr. Gardner said, “At the end of the day, it’s an exploratory study. ... It raises some interesting points that give the rest of us room to follow-up on.”

The study was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation, the Israel Ministry of Health, the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Tsaban has reported no further relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gardner has reported receiving study funding from Beyond Meat.

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

A “green” adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet could help improve insulin sensitivity and reduce visceral fat by increasing levels of ghrelin, the “hunger hormone,” new research suggests.

The current study is a new analysis of data from the randomized DIRECT-PLUS trial, which showed that the addition of green tea and substitution of red meat for a plant-based (Mankai) protein shake at dinner – dubbed the “green Mediterranean diet” – resulted in further improved cardiometabolic benefits compared with the traditional Mediterranean diet among people with baseline abdominal obesity and/or dyslipidemia, according to the researchers.

They specifically looked at ghrelin, nicknamed the “hunger hormone,” a neuropeptide mainly secreted by the gastric epithelium. It acts on the pituitary gland to release growth hormone. Ghrelin concentrations increase during fasting and decrease after eating. Lower levels are associated with insulin resistance and obesity.

Fasting ghrelin levels were elevated with weight loss, but those increases were associated with improved insulin sensitivity and regression of visceral adipose tissue even beyond weight loss.

Although the caloric restriction and weight loss were comparable with the two Mediterranean diets, the green Mediterranean diet group had double the increase in fasting ghrelin as the traditional Mediterranean diet group, the researchers point out in their report .
 

‘Hypothesis-generating’ study pushes many hot topic buttons

“This specific study is the first to show that ghrelin levels play an important role in metabolic adaptation to a dietary or lifestyle intervention and that ghrelin is an important player in the axis of adiposity, insulin resistance, and metabolic health,” lead researcher Gal Tsaban, MD, told this news organization.

The data partially explain some of the prior beneficial effects seen with the Green Mediterranean diet, even after adjustment for weight loss, he explained, noting that the revised version of the diet “could be considered as an alternative lifestyle intervention with possible metabolic benefits even beyond the Mediterranean diet, which is what we currently recommend for patients.”

Asked for comment, Christopher Gardner, PhD, was not as enthusiastic.

He took issue with the fact that ghrelin wasn’t a primary or even a prespecified secondary outcome of the DIRECT-PLUS trial and because the specific plant-based ingredients of the green Mediterranean diet used in the study may not be widely available or desirable and therefore limit the study’s generalizability.

Dr. Gardner, who is director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, California, also said: “They’re tying lots of interesting things together. The Mediterranean diet is a cool thing, ghrelin is a cool thing, and insulin resistance is hugely important in this day and age, even though we don’t all agree on how to measure it.”

“But it gets tough as you try to link them all together for an exploratory outcome. ... To me it’s an interesting hypothesis-generating study that pushes a lot of interesting buttons that are hot topics in the field.”
 

Green Mediterranean diet led to higher ghrelin, metabolic benefits

In DIRECT-PLUS, a total of 294 adults (88% men) older than 30 years of age with abdominal obesity (waist circumference >102 cm for men or >88 cm for women), or dyslipidemia (triglycerides >150 mg/dL and HDL-cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL for men or ≤50 mg/dL for women) were included. Half had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.

They were randomized to one of three diets: a diet based on standard healthy dietary guidelines; a traditional Mediterranean diet low in simple carbohydrates, rich in vegetables, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb and 28 g/day of walnuts; or the Green-Mediterranean diet, including 3-4 cups/day of green tea and 100 g/day of a green shake made from the Mankai strain of Wolffia globosa (also known as duckweed) replacing dinner, and 28 g/day of walnuts.

The Green Mediterranean diet included 800 mg more polyphenols than the traditional Mediterranean diet. Both were equally calorie-restricted, at about 1,500-1,800 kcal/day for men and 1,200-1,400 kcal/day for women. All three groups were instructed to engage in regular physical activity and were given free gym memberships.

The retention rate was 98.3% after 6 months and 89.8% after 18 months.

Weight loss was similar between the two Mediterranean diet groups (2.9% and 3.9% for the traditional and green versions, respectively) compared with the standard healthy diet (0.6%) (P < .05 for both Mediterranean diet groups vs. control).

After 6 months, fasting ghrelin increased in the traditional (8.0%; P = .015) and green (10.5%; P = 0.031) Mediterranean groups versus baseline, with no significant change in the control group.

By 18 months, fasting ghrelin was significantly greater compared with baseline only in the green Mediterranean group (P = .012).

Because the differences in fasting ghrelin trajectories were only significant in men – likely due to the small sample size of women – a subsequent 18-month analysis was limited to the men. In a multivariate model adjusted for age, intervention group, baseline biomarker values, and 18-month weight changes, the 18-month change in fasting ghrelin remained a significant predictor for changes in A1c and homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; P = .022).

Because weight loss remained the most significant predictor of improved insulin resistance, a further analysis examined the association between changes in fasting ghrelin levels with changes in the fraction of insulin resistance marker that were not attributed to weight loss, per se. With the other adjustments, fasting ghrelin was associated with residual reductions in A1c (P = .003), HOMA-IR (P = .021), increased HDL-cholesterol (P = .024), and relative visceral adipose tissue loss (P = .003).  
 

No specific product needed to push Mediterranean diet towards vegan

Dr. Tsaban, a nutritional researcher and cardiologist at Ben-Gurion University and Soroka University Medical Center, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, said the Mankai shake is commonly consumed in Israel but is also available worldwide. The study participants, all employees at an isolated nuclear research facility in the Negev, were particularly motivated. “They didn’t have a satiety problem with the drink. It made them very full,” he said. The manufacturer supplied the shakes but didn’t fund the study, he added.

However, Dr. Tsaban said that the “green Mediterranean diet” doesn’t depend on specific products.

Rather, “the concept is to push the Mediterranean diet a bit further and to replace the animal-based protein with vegetable-based protein, to shift your dietary habits towards a more vegan lifestyle. It’s not completely vegan, but it’s trending there. ... Our main goal was to increase the polyphenol intake, the antioxidant intake from vegetables. ... I think it can be replicated.”

Dr. Gardner said, “At the end of the day, it’s an exploratory study. ... It raises some interesting points that give the rest of us room to follow-up on.”

The study was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation, the Israel Ministry of Health, the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Tsaban has reported no further relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gardner has reported receiving study funding from Beyond Meat.

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

A “green” adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet could help improve insulin sensitivity and reduce visceral fat by increasing levels of ghrelin, the “hunger hormone,” new research suggests.

The current study is a new analysis of data from the randomized DIRECT-PLUS trial, which showed that the addition of green tea and substitution of red meat for a plant-based (Mankai) protein shake at dinner – dubbed the “green Mediterranean diet” – resulted in further improved cardiometabolic benefits compared with the traditional Mediterranean diet among people with baseline abdominal obesity and/or dyslipidemia, according to the researchers.

They specifically looked at ghrelin, nicknamed the “hunger hormone,” a neuropeptide mainly secreted by the gastric epithelium. It acts on the pituitary gland to release growth hormone. Ghrelin concentrations increase during fasting and decrease after eating. Lower levels are associated with insulin resistance and obesity.

Fasting ghrelin levels were elevated with weight loss, but those increases were associated with improved insulin sensitivity and regression of visceral adipose tissue even beyond weight loss.

Although the caloric restriction and weight loss were comparable with the two Mediterranean diets, the green Mediterranean diet group had double the increase in fasting ghrelin as the traditional Mediterranean diet group, the researchers point out in their report .
 

‘Hypothesis-generating’ study pushes many hot topic buttons

“This specific study is the first to show that ghrelin levels play an important role in metabolic adaptation to a dietary or lifestyle intervention and that ghrelin is an important player in the axis of adiposity, insulin resistance, and metabolic health,” lead researcher Gal Tsaban, MD, told this news organization.

The data partially explain some of the prior beneficial effects seen with the Green Mediterranean diet, even after adjustment for weight loss, he explained, noting that the revised version of the diet “could be considered as an alternative lifestyle intervention with possible metabolic benefits even beyond the Mediterranean diet, which is what we currently recommend for patients.”

Asked for comment, Christopher Gardner, PhD, was not as enthusiastic.

He took issue with the fact that ghrelin wasn’t a primary or even a prespecified secondary outcome of the DIRECT-PLUS trial and because the specific plant-based ingredients of the green Mediterranean diet used in the study may not be widely available or desirable and therefore limit the study’s generalizability.

Dr. Gardner, who is director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, California, also said: “They’re tying lots of interesting things together. The Mediterranean diet is a cool thing, ghrelin is a cool thing, and insulin resistance is hugely important in this day and age, even though we don’t all agree on how to measure it.”

“But it gets tough as you try to link them all together for an exploratory outcome. ... To me it’s an interesting hypothesis-generating study that pushes a lot of interesting buttons that are hot topics in the field.”
 

Green Mediterranean diet led to higher ghrelin, metabolic benefits

In DIRECT-PLUS, a total of 294 adults (88% men) older than 30 years of age with abdominal obesity (waist circumference >102 cm for men or >88 cm for women), or dyslipidemia (triglycerides >150 mg/dL and HDL-cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL for men or ≤50 mg/dL for women) were included. Half had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.

They were randomized to one of three diets: a diet based on standard healthy dietary guidelines; a traditional Mediterranean diet low in simple carbohydrates, rich in vegetables, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb and 28 g/day of walnuts; or the Green-Mediterranean diet, including 3-4 cups/day of green tea and 100 g/day of a green shake made from the Mankai strain of Wolffia globosa (also known as duckweed) replacing dinner, and 28 g/day of walnuts.

The Green Mediterranean diet included 800 mg more polyphenols than the traditional Mediterranean diet. Both were equally calorie-restricted, at about 1,500-1,800 kcal/day for men and 1,200-1,400 kcal/day for women. All three groups were instructed to engage in regular physical activity and were given free gym memberships.

The retention rate was 98.3% after 6 months and 89.8% after 18 months.

Weight loss was similar between the two Mediterranean diet groups (2.9% and 3.9% for the traditional and green versions, respectively) compared with the standard healthy diet (0.6%) (P < .05 for both Mediterranean diet groups vs. control).

After 6 months, fasting ghrelin increased in the traditional (8.0%; P = .015) and green (10.5%; P = 0.031) Mediterranean groups versus baseline, with no significant change in the control group.

By 18 months, fasting ghrelin was significantly greater compared with baseline only in the green Mediterranean group (P = .012).

Because the differences in fasting ghrelin trajectories were only significant in men – likely due to the small sample size of women – a subsequent 18-month analysis was limited to the men. In a multivariate model adjusted for age, intervention group, baseline biomarker values, and 18-month weight changes, the 18-month change in fasting ghrelin remained a significant predictor for changes in A1c and homeostatic model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; P = .022).

Because weight loss remained the most significant predictor of improved insulin resistance, a further analysis examined the association between changes in fasting ghrelin levels with changes in the fraction of insulin resistance marker that were not attributed to weight loss, per se. With the other adjustments, fasting ghrelin was associated with residual reductions in A1c (P = .003), HOMA-IR (P = .021), increased HDL-cholesterol (P = .024), and relative visceral adipose tissue loss (P = .003).  
 

No specific product needed to push Mediterranean diet towards vegan

Dr. Tsaban, a nutritional researcher and cardiologist at Ben-Gurion University and Soroka University Medical Center, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, said the Mankai shake is commonly consumed in Israel but is also available worldwide. The study participants, all employees at an isolated nuclear research facility in the Negev, were particularly motivated. “They didn’t have a satiety problem with the drink. It made them very full,” he said. The manufacturer supplied the shakes but didn’t fund the study, he added.

However, Dr. Tsaban said that the “green Mediterranean diet” doesn’t depend on specific products.

Rather, “the concept is to push the Mediterranean diet a bit further and to replace the animal-based protein with vegetable-based protein, to shift your dietary habits towards a more vegan lifestyle. It’s not completely vegan, but it’s trending there. ... Our main goal was to increase the polyphenol intake, the antioxidant intake from vegetables. ... I think it can be replicated.”

Dr. Gardner said, “At the end of the day, it’s an exploratory study. ... It raises some interesting points that give the rest of us room to follow-up on.”

The study was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation, the Israel Ministry of Health, the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Tsaban has reported no further relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gardner has reported receiving study funding from Beyond Meat.

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

The CDC is urging parents and guardians to vaccinate children ages 5-11 against COVID-19 once the shot is fully approved, despite questions from FDA advisers about the urgency given falling national case rates.

On Oct. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to recommend a 10-microgram shot for children. Though 17 of the 18 panelists voted in favor of it, some members said it was a hard decision and questioned the need for it now that cases and hospitalizations are down.

“There’s urgency because we’re seeing disease in children, we’ve seen deaths in children, we’ve seen long COVID,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a White House briefing on Oct. 27. “Certainly we’ve seen cases come down before, and the way to prevent surges again is to get more and more people vaccinated.”

CDC data presented at an Oct. 26 advisory committee meeting show that among children 5-11, COVID-19 was one of top 10 causes of death over last year, Dr. Walensky said. There have been more than 8,300 hospitalizations and 745 deaths in children under 18.

As of yesterday, the 7-day average of daily COVID-19 cases was 65,900, a 16% decrease from the prior week. Hospitalizations are down 54% from the week of Aug. 28, Dr. Walensky said.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” James Hildreth, MD, president and CEO at Meharry Medical College in Nashville, said at the advisory committee meeting on Oct. 26.

But according to one CDC study, hospitalization rates for adolescents were 10 times higher in those who were unvaccinated. Another study found that COVID-related emergency room visits and hospital admissions among children were more than 3 times as high in states with the lowest vaccination rates.

“We are down from our peak in early September, and we are now heading in the right direction, but with cases still high, we must remain vigilant heading into the colder, drier winter months,” Dr. Walensky said, noting that the 7-day average of daily deaths still exceeds 1,000.

Meanwhile, the booster program is off to a “very strong start,” said White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients.

In the 5 days since authorizations, about 15 million people have received an additional dose of the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

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

The CDC is urging parents and guardians to vaccinate children ages 5-11 against COVID-19 once the shot is fully approved, despite questions from FDA advisers about the urgency given falling national case rates.

On Oct. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to recommend a 10-microgram shot for children. Though 17 of the 18 panelists voted in favor of it, some members said it was a hard decision and questioned the need for it now that cases and hospitalizations are down.

“There’s urgency because we’re seeing disease in children, we’ve seen deaths in children, we’ve seen long COVID,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a White House briefing on Oct. 27. “Certainly we’ve seen cases come down before, and the way to prevent surges again is to get more and more people vaccinated.”

CDC data presented at an Oct. 26 advisory committee meeting show that among children 5-11, COVID-19 was one of top 10 causes of death over last year, Dr. Walensky said. There have been more than 8,300 hospitalizations and 745 deaths in children under 18.

As of yesterday, the 7-day average of daily COVID-19 cases was 65,900, a 16% decrease from the prior week. Hospitalizations are down 54% from the week of Aug. 28, Dr. Walensky said.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” James Hildreth, MD, president and CEO at Meharry Medical College in Nashville, said at the advisory committee meeting on Oct. 26.

But according to one CDC study, hospitalization rates for adolescents were 10 times higher in those who were unvaccinated. Another study found that COVID-related emergency room visits and hospital admissions among children were more than 3 times as high in states with the lowest vaccination rates.

“We are down from our peak in early September, and we are now heading in the right direction, but with cases still high, we must remain vigilant heading into the colder, drier winter months,” Dr. Walensky said, noting that the 7-day average of daily deaths still exceeds 1,000.

Meanwhile, the booster program is off to a “very strong start,” said White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients.

In the 5 days since authorizations, about 15 million people have received an additional dose of the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

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

The CDC is urging parents and guardians to vaccinate children ages 5-11 against COVID-19 once the shot is fully approved, despite questions from FDA advisers about the urgency given falling national case rates.

On Oct. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to recommend a 10-microgram shot for children. Though 17 of the 18 panelists voted in favor of it, some members said it was a hard decision and questioned the need for it now that cases and hospitalizations are down.

“There’s urgency because we’re seeing disease in children, we’ve seen deaths in children, we’ve seen long COVID,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a White House briefing on Oct. 27. “Certainly we’ve seen cases come down before, and the way to prevent surges again is to get more and more people vaccinated.”

CDC data presented at an Oct. 26 advisory committee meeting show that among children 5-11, COVID-19 was one of top 10 causes of death over last year, Dr. Walensky said. There have been more than 8,300 hospitalizations and 745 deaths in children under 18.

As of yesterday, the 7-day average of daily COVID-19 cases was 65,900, a 16% decrease from the prior week. Hospitalizations are down 54% from the week of Aug. 28, Dr. Walensky said.

“If the trends continue the way they are going, the emergency for children is not what we might think it would be. That was my concern,” James Hildreth, MD, president and CEO at Meharry Medical College in Nashville, said at the advisory committee meeting on Oct. 26.

But according to one CDC study, hospitalization rates for adolescents were 10 times higher in those who were unvaccinated. Another study found that COVID-related emergency room visits and hospital admissions among children were more than 3 times as high in states with the lowest vaccination rates.

“We are down from our peak in early September, and we are now heading in the right direction, but with cases still high, we must remain vigilant heading into the colder, drier winter months,” Dr. Walensky said, noting that the 7-day average of daily deaths still exceeds 1,000.

Meanwhile, the booster program is off to a “very strong start,” said White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients.

In the 5 days since authorizations, about 15 million people have received an additional dose of the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

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

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

Trick-or-treaters may not be so easily tricked into loving sugar-free treats, thanks to taste buds hard-wired to seek calorie-containing sweets, a new study suggests.

Taste isn’t all about choosing peanut butter cups over jelly beans. Since earliest humanity, our sense of taste has helped us detect salty, sweet, sour, savory, and bitter so that we can choose foods high in energy and low in poisons.

But these new findings suggest that our taste buds have another hidden talent: identifying foods that don’t give us any energy at all.

Scientists suspected this ability after research in mice showed that their taste buds could distinguish between sugar and calorie-free artificial sweeteners.

To test this possibility in humans, scientists asked people to drink a series of clear beverages and identify whether they were plain water or sweetened. The goal was to compare how people responded to glucose – a natural caloric sweetener in fruits, honey, and table sugar – and sucralose, a calorie-free artificial sweetener.

All participants wore nose plugs, ensuring that they would use only their taste buds and not their sense of smell for detection.

As expected, people could easily tell plain water from sweetened drinks, whether with glucose or sucralose, confirming that taste buds detect sweetness.

In a twist, researchers then mixed in flavorless chemicals that block taste buds from picking up sweetness. With these drinks, people could no longer distinguish sucralose-sweetened beverages from plain water. But they could still tell when they had a beverage sweetened with glucose.

This finding indicates that two separate pathways underlie the mouth’s response to sugar, researchers report in PLOS One. The first pathway identifies sweet flavors, and the second one detects foods that contain energy that can be used for fuel.

Scientists might one day come up with calorie-free sweets that trick taste buds into detecting the presence of calories, enhancing their appeal. But in the lab studies, the participants had no visual cues or smell to guide their reactions, meaning how these other sensory inputs would affect treat perception isn’t known.

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

Trick-or-treaters may not be so easily tricked into loving sugar-free treats, thanks to taste buds hard-wired to seek calorie-containing sweets, a new study suggests.

Taste isn’t all about choosing peanut butter cups over jelly beans. Since earliest humanity, our sense of taste has helped us detect salty, sweet, sour, savory, and bitter so that we can choose foods high in energy and low in poisons.

But these new findings suggest that our taste buds have another hidden talent: identifying foods that don’t give us any energy at all.

Scientists suspected this ability after research in mice showed that their taste buds could distinguish between sugar and calorie-free artificial sweeteners.

To test this possibility in humans, scientists asked people to drink a series of clear beverages and identify whether they were plain water or sweetened. The goal was to compare how people responded to glucose – a natural caloric sweetener in fruits, honey, and table sugar – and sucralose, a calorie-free artificial sweetener.

All participants wore nose plugs, ensuring that they would use only their taste buds and not their sense of smell for detection.

As expected, people could easily tell plain water from sweetened drinks, whether with glucose or sucralose, confirming that taste buds detect sweetness.

In a twist, researchers then mixed in flavorless chemicals that block taste buds from picking up sweetness. With these drinks, people could no longer distinguish sucralose-sweetened beverages from plain water. But they could still tell when they had a beverage sweetened with glucose.

This finding indicates that two separate pathways underlie the mouth’s response to sugar, researchers report in PLOS One. The first pathway identifies sweet flavors, and the second one detects foods that contain energy that can be used for fuel.

Scientists might one day come up with calorie-free sweets that trick taste buds into detecting the presence of calories, enhancing their appeal. But in the lab studies, the participants had no visual cues or smell to guide their reactions, meaning how these other sensory inputs would affect treat perception isn’t known.

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

Trick-or-treaters may not be so easily tricked into loving sugar-free treats, thanks to taste buds hard-wired to seek calorie-containing sweets, a new study suggests.

Taste isn’t all about choosing peanut butter cups over jelly beans. Since earliest humanity, our sense of taste has helped us detect salty, sweet, sour, savory, and bitter so that we can choose foods high in energy and low in poisons.

But these new findings suggest that our taste buds have another hidden talent: identifying foods that don’t give us any energy at all.

Scientists suspected this ability after research in mice showed that their taste buds could distinguish between sugar and calorie-free artificial sweeteners.

To test this possibility in humans, scientists asked people to drink a series of clear beverages and identify whether they were plain water or sweetened. The goal was to compare how people responded to glucose – a natural caloric sweetener in fruits, honey, and table sugar – and sucralose, a calorie-free artificial sweetener.

All participants wore nose plugs, ensuring that they would use only their taste buds and not their sense of smell for detection.

As expected, people could easily tell plain water from sweetened drinks, whether with glucose or sucralose, confirming that taste buds detect sweetness.

In a twist, researchers then mixed in flavorless chemicals that block taste buds from picking up sweetness. With these drinks, people could no longer distinguish sucralose-sweetened beverages from plain water. But they could still tell when they had a beverage sweetened with glucose.

This finding indicates that two separate pathways underlie the mouth’s response to sugar, researchers report in PLOS One. The first pathway identifies sweet flavors, and the second one detects foods that contain energy that can be used for fuel.

Scientists might one day come up with calorie-free sweets that trick taste buds into detecting the presence of calories, enhancing their appeal. But in the lab studies, the participants had no visual cues or smell to guide their reactions, meaning how these other sensory inputs would affect treat perception isn’t known.

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

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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