MDedge Emergency Medicine

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

“When I walk in to see a patient, I always introduce myself with, ‘Hello, my name is Cyndy, I’m the PA working with the doctor today,’ ” says Cyndy Flores, a physician assistant (PA) in the emergency department at Vituity, Emeryville, Calif. “Sometimes, I can go through a complete history and physical, explain a treatment plan, and perform a procedure, and [the patient] will say, ‘Thank you, doctor.’ ”

“I always come back and say, ‘You’re very welcome, but my name is Cyndy, and I’m the PA.’ ”

Ms. Flores is used to patients calling her “doctor” when she greets them. She typically offers a quick correction and moves on with the appointment.

With 355,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 149,000 certified PAs practicing in the United States, it’s more common than ever for health care providers who don’t go by the title “doctor” to diagnose and treat patients.

A recent report, Evolving Scope of Practice, found that more than 70% of physicians were “somewhat satisfied to very satisfied” with patient treatment by PAs and NPs.

But for patients, having a health care team that includes physicians, NPs, and PAs can be confusing. Additionally, it creates a need for education about their correct titles and roles in patient care.

“It’s really important for patients to understand who is taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says.
 

Education starts in your practice

Educating patients about the roles of different providers on their health care team starts long before patients enter the exam room, Ms. Flores explains.

Some patients may not understand the difference, some may just forget because they’re used to calling all providers doctors, and others may find it awkward to use a provider’s first name or not know the respectful way to address an NP or a PA.

Practices can help by listing the names and biographies of the health care team on the clinic website. In addition, when patients call for an appointment, Ms. Flores believes front desk staff can reinforce that information. When offering appointments with a physician, NP, or PA, clearly use the practitioner’s title and reiterate it throughout the conversation. For example, “Would you like to see our nurse practitioner, Alice Smith, next week?” or “So, our physician assistant Mrs. Jones will see you Friday at 3 PM.”

The report also found that 76% of patients expressed a preference to see a physician over a PA, and 71% expressed a preference to see a physician over an NP, but offering appointments with nonphysician providers is part of the education process.

“Some families are super savvy and know the differences between nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors, and ... there are families who don’t understand those titles, [and] we need to explain what they do in our practice,” adds Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware. Dr. Aaronson believes there’s an opportunity for educating patients when speaking about all the available providers they may see.

Hanging posters or using brochures in the clinic or hospital is another effective way to reinforce the roles of various providers on the care team. Include biographies and educational information on practice materials and video programs running in the waiting room. 

“Patients mean it [calling everyone doctor] as a way to respectfully address the nurse practitioner or physician assistant rather than meaning it as a denigration of the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. “But everyone appreciates being called by the correct title.”

Helping patients understand the members of their care team and the correct titles to use for those health care professionals could also help patients feel more confident about their health care experience.

“Patients really like knowing that there are specialists in each of the areas taking care of them,” Ms. Flores says. “I think that conveys a feeling of trust in your provider.”
 

Not everyone is a doctor

Even when PAs and NPs remind patients of their roles and reinforce the use of their preferred names, there will still be patients who continue referring to their nonphysician provider as “doctor.”

“There’s a perception that anyone who walks into a room with a stethoscope is your doctor,” says Graig Straus, DNP, an NP and president and CEO of Rockland Urgent Care Family Health NP, P.C., West Haverstraw, N.Y. “You do get a little bit of burnout correcting people all the time.”

Dr. Straus, who earned his doctorate in nursing practice, notes that patients using the honorific with him aren’t incorrect, but he still educates them on his role within the health care team.

“NPs and PAs have a valuable role to play independently and in concert with the physician,” Dr. Aaronson says. This understanding is essential, as states consider expanding treatment abilities for NPs and PAs.

NPs have expanded treatment abilities or full practice authority in almost half the states, and 31% of the physicians surveyed agreed that NPs should have expanded treatment abilities.

An estimated 1 in 5 states characterizes the physician-PA relationship as collaborative, not supervisory, according to the American Academy of Physician Associates. At the same time, only 39% of physicians surveyed said they favored this trend.

“Patients need great quality care, and there are many different types of providers that can provide that care as part of the team,” Ms. Flores says. “When you have a team taking care of a patient, that patient [gets] the best care possible – and ... that’s why we went into medicine: to deliver high-quality, compassionate care to our patients, and we should all be in this together.”

When practices do their part explaining who is and isn’t a doctor and what each provider’s title and role is and what to call them, and everyone reinforces it, health care becomes not only more manageable for patients to traverse but easier to understand, leading to a better experience.

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

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ketamine poisonings in the United States increased 81% between 2019 and 2021, according to a new analysis of calls to poison control centers.

Although the overall ketamine exposures were low, researchers say the findings add to a growing body of research that suggests recreational ketamine use may be on the rise.

“Ketamine is by no means the most dangerous drug, but it could be dangerous if combined with drugs such as alcohol or if used in potentially hazardous situations – physically hazardous or socially hazardous,” lead author Joseph Palamar, PhD, associate professor and epidemiologist at New York University Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

“People who decide to use ketamine recreationally need to be educated about potential risks,” Dr. Palamar said.

The findings were recently published online in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.
 

More widespread use

Researchers noted that ketamine use has become more widespread in the United States due in part to increasing availability of ketamine in both clinical and nonclinical settings.

Previous work by Dr. Palamar documented an increase in recreational use of ketamine at dance clubs and an increase in ketamine seizures by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In the current study, investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Control database and included cases reported by 51 of the 55 poison control centers in the United States.

They identified 758 cases involving ketamine exposure between the first quarter of 2019 and the last quarter of 2021 in individuals aged 13 and older, more than half of whom were men.

The number of ketamine exposures increased 81.1% during the study period, rising from 37 to 67 (P = .018).

Nearly 40% of callers reported intentional misuse or abuse of ketamine, while 19.7% involved a suspected suicide or suicide attempt. The ketamine exposure was unintended in 18.9% of cases, and 10.6% of calls involved an adverse drug reaction.

Onep-third of cases involved co-use of other substances, most commonly benzodiazepines, opioids, or alcohol.

The route of administration was ingestion for 44.3%, injection for 18.8%, and inhalation for 17.6%. Another 19.3% involved another route or a combination of routes.

Nearly 20% of cases reported a major adverse effect or death, 42.8% reported a moderate effect, 25.8% a minor effect, and 11.8% no effect. There were seven deaths reported in ketamine-related calls, although Dr. Palamar noted it is unlikely those deaths were due solely to ketamine use.

Researchers didn’t analyze specific harms reported in the calls, but chronic and heavy ketamine use has been previously associated with cognitive impairment, urinary cystitis and other urinary tract issues, and upper gastrointestinal problems.

In addition, using ketamine with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or opioids was associated with a significantly higher risk for major adverse effects (P < .001 for both). Injecting ketamine was also linked to a higher prevalence of major adverse effects, although the association did not quite reach significance (P < .05).
 

Cause for concern

Commenting on the findings, Timothy Wiegand, MD, director of Addiction Toxicology and Toxicology Consult Service and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, New York, noted the data on co-use of ketamine with other drugs were cause for concern.

“I think the co-occurring behaviors are critical here with concomitant use of opioids and GHB, intravenous drug use, or that it is used in an attempt to harm one’s self because it allows for identification of these behaviors or use patterns,” said Dr. Wiegand, who was not involved with the research.

He added that it is important for “addiction providers and others in medicine or in the addiction field to be aware of trends” associated with ketamine.

“At the same time, a focus on general prevention, and access to care and treatment, and understanding how to implement harm reduction strategies remain high priorities,” Dr. Wiegand said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Palamar has reported consulting for Alkermes. Dr. Wiegand has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and teens with concussions who returned to school sooner showed fewer symptoms after 2 weeks than those who returned to school later, based on data from more than 1,600 individuals aged 5-18 years.

The timing for return to school after a concussion has been the subject of guidelines, but data on how the timing of school returns affects later symptom burdens are limited, Christopher G. Vaughan, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Rockville, Md., and colleagues wrote.

Examining how the timing of return to school (RTS) affects later symptoms is needed to inform early postinjury management, they said.

In the new study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 1,630 children and teens aged 5-18 years who were treated for concussions at nine Canadian pediatric EDs. The primary outcome was symptom burden at 14 days post concussion, based on the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI). Early RTS was defined as missing fewer than 3 days of school post concussion.

Overall, the mean number of missed school days was 3.74 (excluding weekends). When divided by age, the mean number of missed days was 2.61 for children aged 5-7 years, 3.26 for those aged 8-12 years, and 4.71 for those aged 13-18 years.

Slightly more than half (53.7%) of the participants had an early RTS of 2 missed days or fewer. Later RTS was most common in the oldest age group, followed by the middle and younger age groups.

The researchers used a propensity score–matched analysis to determine associations. At 14 days, an early RTS was associated with reduced symptoms among 8- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 18-year-olds, though not in the youngest patients aged 5-7 years. In addition, the researchers created quantiles based on initial symptom ratings.

For the youngest age group, the association between early RTS and reduced symptoms at day 14 was higher among those with lower initial symptoms.

For the two older groups, the association was higher for those with higher initial symptoms (based on the PCSI).

The findings that earlier RTS was associated with a lower symptom burden at day 14 for those with higher levels of symptoms at baseline was surprising, but the mechanisms of the timing and effect of RTS requires more study, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The effect of early RTS on symptoms may be in part related to factors such as “the benefits of socialization, reduced stress from not missing too much school, maintaining or returning to a normal sleep-wake schedule, and returning to light to moderate physical activity (gym class and recreational activities),” the researchers noted.

Another study related to recovery and concussion recently appeared in Neurology. In that study, the authors found that those athletes who took a longer time to recover from a sports-related concussion could still return to play with additional time off, but the methods and populations differed from the current study, which focused on RTS rather than returning to play.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of randomization for RTS timing and a lack of data on the variety of potential supports and accommodations students received, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and diverse nature of the concussions, and the roughly equal representation of boys and girls, they said.

Although randomized trials are needed to determine the best timing for RTS, the current study suggests that RTS within 2 days of a concussion is associated with improved symptoms, “and may directly or indirectly promote faster recovery,” they concluded.
 

Early return remains feasible for most children and teens

“Return to school can be a complicated issue for children and teens with concussions,” said Caitlyn Mooney, MD, a pediatrician and specialist in sports medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said in an interview. Although much research has focused on diagnosis and return to sport after a concussion, there has been less focus on returning to school and learning. Various issues post concussion can make schooling difficult, and students may experience trouble with vision, concentration, sleep, headaches, and more.

Despite this knowledge, studies that specifically address recommended school protocols are limited, Dr. Mooney said. “Additionally, all concussions are different; while some students will need minimal help to return and succeed in school, others may need individualized learning plans and accommodations for school.” A return to school ideally would be a team-based approach with input from the parent, patient, physician, and educators.

“The theory of cognitive rest stems from the idea that a concussion causes metabolic dysfunction in the brain, and that increasing the metabolic demands of the brain can result in symptoms and a delayed return to school,” said Dr. Mooney.

Evidence suggests that those who start resting early after a concussion improve more quickly, “but there has been ongoing discussion over the years of what is the correct balance of cognitive rest to returning to modified activity,” she said. “This has led to the current general recommendation of rest for 24-48 hours followed by a gradual return to school as tolerated.”

Although the current study is large, it is limited by the lack of randomization, Dr. Mooney noted, therefore conclusions cannot be made that the cause of the improved symptoms is a quicker return to school.

However, the results support data from previous studies, in that both of the older age groups showed less disease burden at 14 days after an earlier return to school, she said.

“With prolonged absences, adolescents get isolated at home away from friends, and they may have increased mood symptoms. Additionally, I have found a high number of my patients who do not go to school as quickly have more sleep disturbance, which seems to increase symptoms such as difficulty concentrating or headaches,” she said. “It seems like the students do benefit from a routine schedule even if they have to have some accommodations at school, especially older students who may have more stress about missing school and falling behind on schoolwork.”

The message for pediatricians is that return to school should be individualized, Dr. Mooney said.

Although the current study does not dictate the optimal return to school, the results support those of previous studies in showing that, after 1-2 days of rest, an early return does not harm children and teens and may improve symptoms in many cases, she said. “In my experience, sometimes schools find it easier to keep the student at home rather than manage rest or special accommodations,” but the current study suggests that delaying return to school may not be the right choice for many patients.

“I hope this study empowers clinicians to advocate for these students, that the right place for them is in the classroom even with rest, extra time, or other accommodations,” said Dr. Mooney.

“Each concussion should be evaluated and treated individually; there will likely be a few who may need to stay home for a longer period of time, but this study suggests that the majority of students will suffer no ill effects from returning to the normal routine after a 2-day rest,” she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Vaughan and several coauthors disclosed being authors of the Postconcussion Symptom Inventory outside of the current study. Dr. Mooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children and teens with concussions who returned to school sooner showed fewer symptoms after 2 weeks than those who returned to school later, based on data from more than 1,600 individuals aged 5-18 years.

The timing for return to school after a concussion has been the subject of guidelines, but data on how the timing of school returns affects later symptom burdens are limited, Christopher G. Vaughan, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Rockville, Md., and colleagues wrote.

Examining how the timing of return to school (RTS) affects later symptoms is needed to inform early postinjury management, they said.

In the new study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 1,630 children and teens aged 5-18 years who were treated for concussions at nine Canadian pediatric EDs. The primary outcome was symptom burden at 14 days post concussion, based on the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI). Early RTS was defined as missing fewer than 3 days of school post concussion.

Overall, the mean number of missed school days was 3.74 (excluding weekends). When divided by age, the mean number of missed days was 2.61 for children aged 5-7 years, 3.26 for those aged 8-12 years, and 4.71 for those aged 13-18 years.

Slightly more than half (53.7%) of the participants had an early RTS of 2 missed days or fewer. Later RTS was most common in the oldest age group, followed by the middle and younger age groups.

The researchers used a propensity score–matched analysis to determine associations. At 14 days, an early RTS was associated with reduced symptoms among 8- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 18-year-olds, though not in the youngest patients aged 5-7 years. In addition, the researchers created quantiles based on initial symptom ratings.

For the youngest age group, the association between early RTS and reduced symptoms at day 14 was higher among those with lower initial symptoms.

For the two older groups, the association was higher for those with higher initial symptoms (based on the PCSI).

The findings that earlier RTS was associated with a lower symptom burden at day 14 for those with higher levels of symptoms at baseline was surprising, but the mechanisms of the timing and effect of RTS requires more study, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The effect of early RTS on symptoms may be in part related to factors such as “the benefits of socialization, reduced stress from not missing too much school, maintaining or returning to a normal sleep-wake schedule, and returning to light to moderate physical activity (gym class and recreational activities),” the researchers noted.

Another study related to recovery and concussion recently appeared in Neurology. In that study, the authors found that those athletes who took a longer time to recover from a sports-related concussion could still return to play with additional time off, but the methods and populations differed from the current study, which focused on RTS rather than returning to play.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of randomization for RTS timing and a lack of data on the variety of potential supports and accommodations students received, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and diverse nature of the concussions, and the roughly equal representation of boys and girls, they said.

Although randomized trials are needed to determine the best timing for RTS, the current study suggests that RTS within 2 days of a concussion is associated with improved symptoms, “and may directly or indirectly promote faster recovery,” they concluded.
 

Early return remains feasible for most children and teens

“Return to school can be a complicated issue for children and teens with concussions,” said Caitlyn Mooney, MD, a pediatrician and specialist in sports medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said in an interview. Although much research has focused on diagnosis and return to sport after a concussion, there has been less focus on returning to school and learning. Various issues post concussion can make schooling difficult, and students may experience trouble with vision, concentration, sleep, headaches, and more.

Despite this knowledge, studies that specifically address recommended school protocols are limited, Dr. Mooney said. “Additionally, all concussions are different; while some students will need minimal help to return and succeed in school, others may need individualized learning plans and accommodations for school.” A return to school ideally would be a team-based approach with input from the parent, patient, physician, and educators.

“The theory of cognitive rest stems from the idea that a concussion causes metabolic dysfunction in the brain, and that increasing the metabolic demands of the brain can result in symptoms and a delayed return to school,” said Dr. Mooney.

Evidence suggests that those who start resting early after a concussion improve more quickly, “but there has been ongoing discussion over the years of what is the correct balance of cognitive rest to returning to modified activity,” she said. “This has led to the current general recommendation of rest for 24-48 hours followed by a gradual return to school as tolerated.”

Although the current study is large, it is limited by the lack of randomization, Dr. Mooney noted, therefore conclusions cannot be made that the cause of the improved symptoms is a quicker return to school.

However, the results support data from previous studies, in that both of the older age groups showed less disease burden at 14 days after an earlier return to school, she said.

“With prolonged absences, adolescents get isolated at home away from friends, and they may have increased mood symptoms. Additionally, I have found a high number of my patients who do not go to school as quickly have more sleep disturbance, which seems to increase symptoms such as difficulty concentrating or headaches,” she said. “It seems like the students do benefit from a routine schedule even if they have to have some accommodations at school, especially older students who may have more stress about missing school and falling behind on schoolwork.”

The message for pediatricians is that return to school should be individualized, Dr. Mooney said.

Although the current study does not dictate the optimal return to school, the results support those of previous studies in showing that, after 1-2 days of rest, an early return does not harm children and teens and may improve symptoms in many cases, she said. “In my experience, sometimes schools find it easier to keep the student at home rather than manage rest or special accommodations,” but the current study suggests that delaying return to school may not be the right choice for many patients.

“I hope this study empowers clinicians to advocate for these students, that the right place for them is in the classroom even with rest, extra time, or other accommodations,” said Dr. Mooney.

“Each concussion should be evaluated and treated individually; there will likely be a few who may need to stay home for a longer period of time, but this study suggests that the majority of students will suffer no ill effects from returning to the normal routine after a 2-day rest,” she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Vaughan and several coauthors disclosed being authors of the Postconcussion Symptom Inventory outside of the current study. Dr. Mooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children and teens with concussions who returned to school sooner showed fewer symptoms after 2 weeks than those who returned to school later, based on data from more than 1,600 individuals aged 5-18 years.

The timing for return to school after a concussion has been the subject of guidelines, but data on how the timing of school returns affects later symptom burdens are limited, Christopher G. Vaughan, PhD, of Children’s National Hospital, Rockville, Md., and colleagues wrote.

Examining how the timing of return to school (RTS) affects later symptoms is needed to inform early postinjury management, they said.

In the new study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 1,630 children and teens aged 5-18 years who were treated for concussions at nine Canadian pediatric EDs. The primary outcome was symptom burden at 14 days post concussion, based on the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory (PCSI). Early RTS was defined as missing fewer than 3 days of school post concussion.

Overall, the mean number of missed school days was 3.74 (excluding weekends). When divided by age, the mean number of missed days was 2.61 for children aged 5-7 years, 3.26 for those aged 8-12 years, and 4.71 for those aged 13-18 years.

Slightly more than half (53.7%) of the participants had an early RTS of 2 missed days or fewer. Later RTS was most common in the oldest age group, followed by the middle and younger age groups.

The researchers used a propensity score–matched analysis to determine associations. At 14 days, an early RTS was associated with reduced symptoms among 8- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 18-year-olds, though not in the youngest patients aged 5-7 years. In addition, the researchers created quantiles based on initial symptom ratings.

For the youngest age group, the association between early RTS and reduced symptoms at day 14 was higher among those with lower initial symptoms.

For the two older groups, the association was higher for those with higher initial symptoms (based on the PCSI).

The findings that earlier RTS was associated with a lower symptom burden at day 14 for those with higher levels of symptoms at baseline was surprising, but the mechanisms of the timing and effect of RTS requires more study, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The effect of early RTS on symptoms may be in part related to factors such as “the benefits of socialization, reduced stress from not missing too much school, maintaining or returning to a normal sleep-wake schedule, and returning to light to moderate physical activity (gym class and recreational activities),” the researchers noted.

Another study related to recovery and concussion recently appeared in Neurology. In that study, the authors found that those athletes who took a longer time to recover from a sports-related concussion could still return to play with additional time off, but the methods and populations differed from the current study, which focused on RTS rather than returning to play.

The current study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of randomization for RTS timing and a lack of data on the variety of potential supports and accommodations students received, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and diverse nature of the concussions, and the roughly equal representation of boys and girls, they said.

Although randomized trials are needed to determine the best timing for RTS, the current study suggests that RTS within 2 days of a concussion is associated with improved symptoms, “and may directly or indirectly promote faster recovery,” they concluded.
 

Early return remains feasible for most children and teens

“Return to school can be a complicated issue for children and teens with concussions,” said Caitlyn Mooney, MD, a pediatrician and specialist in sports medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said in an interview. Although much research has focused on diagnosis and return to sport after a concussion, there has been less focus on returning to school and learning. Various issues post concussion can make schooling difficult, and students may experience trouble with vision, concentration, sleep, headaches, and more.

Despite this knowledge, studies that specifically address recommended school protocols are limited, Dr. Mooney said. “Additionally, all concussions are different; while some students will need minimal help to return and succeed in school, others may need individualized learning plans and accommodations for school.” A return to school ideally would be a team-based approach with input from the parent, patient, physician, and educators.

“The theory of cognitive rest stems from the idea that a concussion causes metabolic dysfunction in the brain, and that increasing the metabolic demands of the brain can result in symptoms and a delayed return to school,” said Dr. Mooney.

Evidence suggests that those who start resting early after a concussion improve more quickly, “but there has been ongoing discussion over the years of what is the correct balance of cognitive rest to returning to modified activity,” she said. “This has led to the current general recommendation of rest for 24-48 hours followed by a gradual return to school as tolerated.”

Although the current study is large, it is limited by the lack of randomization, Dr. Mooney noted, therefore conclusions cannot be made that the cause of the improved symptoms is a quicker return to school.

However, the results support data from previous studies, in that both of the older age groups showed less disease burden at 14 days after an earlier return to school, she said.

“With prolonged absences, adolescents get isolated at home away from friends, and they may have increased mood symptoms. Additionally, I have found a high number of my patients who do not go to school as quickly have more sleep disturbance, which seems to increase symptoms such as difficulty concentrating or headaches,” she said. “It seems like the students do benefit from a routine schedule even if they have to have some accommodations at school, especially older students who may have more stress about missing school and falling behind on schoolwork.”

The message for pediatricians is that return to school should be individualized, Dr. Mooney said.

Although the current study does not dictate the optimal return to school, the results support those of previous studies in showing that, after 1-2 days of rest, an early return does not harm children and teens and may improve symptoms in many cases, she said. “In my experience, sometimes schools find it easier to keep the student at home rather than manage rest or special accommodations,” but the current study suggests that delaying return to school may not be the right choice for many patients.

“I hope this study empowers clinicians to advocate for these students, that the right place for them is in the classroom even with rest, extra time, or other accommodations,” said Dr. Mooney.

“Each concussion should be evaluated and treated individually; there will likely be a few who may need to stay home for a longer period of time, but this study suggests that the majority of students will suffer no ill effects from returning to the normal routine after a 2-day rest,” she noted.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Vaughan and several coauthors disclosed being authors of the Postconcussion Symptom Inventory outside of the current study. Dr. Mooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

On Twitter, as in real life, it’s a question on many minds: When should we think about the next COVID-19 vaccine? Or should we?

For some people who have received a two-dose primary series and all the recommended boosters, that could mean a sixth shot since COVID-19 vaccines became available. But is even that enough (or too much)?

At this point, no one knows for sure, but new guidance may be on the docket.

On Jan. 26, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is meeting. On the agenda is discussion about plans for future vaccinations for COVID-19.The committee, made up of external advisers, evaluates data on vaccines and other products for the agency.

According to the FDA announcement, after the meeting, “the FDA will consider whether to recommend adjustments to the current authorizations and approvals, and the FDA will consider the most efficient and transparent process to use for selection of strains for inclusion in the primary and booster vaccines.”

From there, the CDC will take up the issue and decide on recommendations.

The issue is important, as more than 550 Americans a day are still dying from COVID-19, as of the week ending Jan. 13, the CDC reported. That’s up from 346 a day for the week ending Dec. 28.

Yet, uptake of the newest vaccine, the bivalent booster, has been slow. As of Jan. 11, just 15.9% of the population 5 years and up has gotten it; for those most vulnerable to COVID19 – those 65 and up – the number is just 39%.
 

COVID vaccines, 2023 and beyond

Meanwhile, infectious disease experts have widely differing views on what the vaccination landscape of 2023 and beyond should look like. Among the areas of disagreement are how effective the bivalent vaccine is, which people most need another shot, and what type of vaccine is best.

“I think we probably will need another booster,” says Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, and codirector of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “The question is, what is it going to be? Is it going to be the same bivalent that we just got, or will it be a new bivalent or even a trivalent?” 

The trivalent booster, he suggested, might include something more protective against XBB.1.5.

The bivalent booster gives “broadened immunity” that is improved from the original booster shots, says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health professionals.

In his publication Ground Truths, Dr. Topol on Jan. 11 explained how new data caused him to reverse his previously skeptical view of how the FDA authorized the bivalent vaccine in September without data on how it affected humans at the time.

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is a member of the FDA advisory committee for vaccines. He still takes a dimmer view of more bivalent booster vaccines, at least as a blanket recommendation. 

While he acknowledges that boosters can help some groups – such as older adults, people with multiple health conditions, and those with compromised immune systems – he opposes a recommendation that’s population-wide.

“People who fall into those three groups do benefit,” he says, “but the recommendation is everyone over 6 months get the bivalent, and what I’m asking is, ‘Where is the data that a healthy 12-year-old boy needs a booster to stay out of the hospital?’ ”
 

Evolving research

“We are trying to understand how to stay one step ahead rather than several steps behind [the virus],“ says Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Among the key questions: How well can a vaccine work against a single subvariant, when no one can say for sure what the next predominant subvariant will be?

Much more research has become available recently about the bivalent vaccine and its effectiveness, Dr. Osterholm says. “The bivalent vaccine is working as well as we could have expected,” he says, especially in high-risk people and in those over age 65. “The challenge we have is, what does that mean going forward?”

In his review, Dr. Topol concludes: “There is now more than ample, highly consistent evidence via lab studies and clinical outcomes to support the bivalent’s benefit over the original booster.”

Among other evidence, he looked at eight studies, including four that used a live virus as part of the research. Six of the eight studies showed the bivalent booster is more effective against the BA.5 variant, compared with the original booster shots. Two others showed no real difference.

“The four live virus studies offer consistent evidence of broadened immunity for the BA.5 vaccine that is improved over the original booster shots,” Dr. Topol wrote. The evidence also found the bivalent antibody response superior against XBB, he wrote.

Dr. Topol also cited CDC data that supports the benefits of the bivalent shot on hospitalization in older adults. During November, hospitalization of adults 65 and above was 2.5 times higher for those vaccinated who did not get the booster, compared to those who got the updated bivalent booster.

Boosters do matter, Dr. Offit says. “But not for all.” In a perspective published Jan. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine – the same issue that published the two studies finding few differences between the original and bivalent – Dr. Offit wrote that boosting is best reserved for vulnerable groups.

Chasing the variants with a bivalent vaccine, he says, “has not panned out. There remains no evidence that a bivalent vaccine is any better than what we had. Please, show me the data that one is better than the other.”

Dr. Offit believes the goal should not be to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them “with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later.”

The CDC needs to parse the data by subgroups, Dr. Offit says. “The critical question is, ‘Who gets hospitalized and who is dying? Who are they?’ ”

That data should take into account age, ethnicity, vaccine history, and other factors, Dr. Offit says, because right now, there is no great data to say, “OK, everyone gets a boost.”
 

Future vaccine costs

Another debate – for not only current boosters but future ones, too – centers on cost. Without congressional action to fund more vaccines, vaccine makers have suggested their prices may reach $130 a dose, compared with the average $20-per-dose cost the federal government pays now, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The government has spent more than $30 billion on COVID-19 vaccines, including the bivalent, to provide them free of charge.

The suggested price increase infuriated many. On Jan. 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent a letter to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, urging him to reconsider and refrain from any price increase.

“The huge increase in price that you have proposed will have a significantly negative impact on the budgets of Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs that will continue covering the vaccine without cost-sharing for patients.”

He pointed out, too, the $19 billion in profits Moderna has made over the past 2 years.

While most people with health insurance would likely still get the vaccines and booster for free, according to the Kaiser analysis, will a higher price discourage people from keeping up with recommended vaccinations, including a possible new booster?

“I think so, yes,” Dr. Hotez says, noting that vaccine reluctance is high as it is, even with free vaccinations and easy access.

“The government is balking at paying for the boosters,” he says. “I think it’s very tone deaf from the pharmaceutical companies [to increase the price]. Given all the help they’ve gotten from the American people, I think they should not be gouging at this point.”

He noted that the federal government provided not just money to the companies for the vaccines, but a “glide path” through the FDA for the vaccine approvals.
 

Are new, variant-specific boosters coming?

Are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and others developing more variant-specific vaccines, boosters, or other advances?

Novavax, approved in July 2022 as a primary series and in some cases as a booster, is “also developing an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine at the direction of public health agencies,” says spokesperson Alison Chartan.

Pfizer responded: “When and if we have something to share we will let you know.”

Moderna did not respond.

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

If Willarda Edwards, MD, MBA, had won her 2022 campaign for president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), she would have been the second Black woman to head the group.

The AMA, however, accused her of vote trading. Now, the Baltimore internist and AMA trustee has sued the organization for defamation and conspiracy.

The lawsuit sheds light on the power dynamics of a politically potent organization that has more than 271,000 members and holds assets of $1.2 billion. The AMA president is one of the most visible figures in American medicine.

“The AMA impugned Dr. Edwards with these false charges, which destroyed her candidacy and irreparably damaged her reputation,” according to the complaint, which was filed Nov. 9, 2022, in Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case was later moved to federal court.

The AMA “previously rejected our attempt to resolve this matter without litigation,” Dr. Edwards’ attorney, Timothy Maloney, told this news organization. An AMA spokesman said the organization had no comment on Dr. Edwards’ suit.

Dr. Edwards is a past president of the National Medical Association, MedChi, the Baltimore City Medical Society, the Monumental City Medical Society, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America. She joined the AMA in 1994 and has served as a trustee since 2016.

As chair of the AMA Task Force on Health Equity, “she helped lead the way in consensus building and driving action that in 2019 resulted in the AMA House of Delegates establishing the AMA Center on Health Equity,” according to her AMA bio page.
 

‘Quid pro quo’ alleged

In June 2022, Dr. Edwards was one of three individuals running to be AMA president-elect.

According to Dr. Edwards’ complaint, she was “incorrectly advised by colleagues” that Virginia urologist William Reha, MD, had decided not to seek the AMA vice-speakership in 2023. This was important because both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Reha were in the Southeastern delegation. It could be in Dr. Edwards’ favor if Dr. Reha was not running, as it would mean one less leadership candidate from the same region.

Dr. Edwards called Dr. Reha on June 6 to discuss the matter. When they talked, Dr. Reha allegedly recorded the call without Dr. Edwards’ knowledge or permission – a felony in Maryland – and also steered her toward discussions about how his decision could benefit her campaign, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that Dr. Reha’s questions were “clearly calculated to draw some statements by Dr. Edwards that he could use later to thwart her candidacy and to benefit her opponent.”

On June 10, at the AMA’s House of Delegates meeting in Chicago, Dr. Edwards was taken aside and questioned by members of the AMA’s Election Campaign Committee, according to the complaint. They accused her of “vote trading” but did not provide any evidence or a copy of a complaint they said had been filed against her, the suit said.

Dr. Edwards was given no opportunity to produce her own evidence or rebut the accusations, the suit alleges.

Just before the delegates started formal business on June 13, House Speaker Bruce Scott, MD, read a statement to the assembly saying that a complaint of a possible campaign violation had been filed against Dr. Edwards.

Dr. Scott told the delegates that “committee members interviewed the complainant and multiple other individuals said to have knowledge of the circumstances. In addition to conducting multiple interviews, the committee reviewed evidence that was deemed credible and corroborated that a campaign violation did in fact occur,” according to the complaint.

The supposed violation: A “quid pro quo” in which an unnamed delegation would support Dr. Edwards’ current candidacy, and the Southeastern delegation would support a future candidate from that other unnamed delegation.

Dr. Edwards was given a short opportunity to speak, in which she denied any violations.

According to a news report, Dr. Edwards said, “I’ve been in the House of Delegates for 30 years, and you know me as a process person – a person who truly believes in the process and trying to follow the complexities of our election campaign.”

The lawsuit alleges that “this defamatory conduct was repeated the next day to more than 600 delegates just minutes prior to the casting of votes, when Dr Scott repeated these allegations.”

Dr. Edwards lost the election.
 

AMA: Nothing more to add

The suit alleges that neither the Election Campaign Committee nor the AMA itself has made any accusers or complaints available to Dr. Edwards and that it has not provided any audio or written evidence of her alleged violation.

In July, the AMA’s Southeastern delegation told its membership, “We continue to maintain that Willarda was ‘set up’ ... The whole affair lacked any reasonable semblance of due process.”

The delegation has filed a counter claim against the AMA seeking “to address this lack of due process as well as the reputational harm” to the delegation.

The AMA said that it has nothing it can produce. “The Speaker of the House presented a verbal report to the attending delegates,” said a spokesman. “The Speaker’s report remains the only remarks from an AMA officer, and no additional remarks can be expected at this time.”

He added that there “is no official transcript of the Speaker’s report.”

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].