Family Practice News

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier in 2024, Utah became the seventh state to allow psychologists with the proper training to prescribe psychotropic medications, giving supporters reason to hope that more states might support expanding this scope of practice.

However, the American Psychiatric Association — and some psychologists — oppose granting psychologists this privilege, arguing that the training offered is insufficient and could jeopardize patient safety.

The controversy over whether psychologists should be allowed to prescribe is as old as the so-called RxP movement itself, which began in the early 1990s.

Psychologists have not rushed to become licensed prescribers. After three decades, an estimated 226 psychologists — representing just 0.14% of all those licensed in the United States — have been authorized to prescribe in the six states and one territory where it has been legalized, according to a just-published study in Clinical Psychology.

These are Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Guam. Data from the study show that only 73 psychologists are prescribing in New Mexico, which authorized it in 2002.

Less is known about the number of psychologists who are prescribing under allowances in the Department of Defense, Indian Health Service and US Public Health Service.

Some psychologists — and the American Psychological Association (APA) — believe that the persistence of the opioid epidemic coupled with a continued lack of access to mental health care for millions of Americans will bring more legislators on-side.

“I feel like we’re on an upswing again,” Deborah Baker, director of legal and regulatory policy for the APA, told Medscape Medical News. “The access issue continues to be a perennial kind of driver.” She noted that at least six states pursued expanding privileges this year.

Robert L. Trestman, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing, said he doesn’t see new momentum. The interest in having psychologists prescribe “continues to trickle based on just the frustration that people have about not getting adequate access to psychiatry,” he told Medscape Medical News.

While states may be trying to increase access to care, granting psychologists privileges is “not a very effective way of doing it,” said Trestman, Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine in Roanoke. Psychologists are needed to deliver psychotherapy, he said. “It makes almost no sense to try to make them into pseudo medical professionals,” said Trestman. “It just exposes people to risks.”

William Robiner, PhD — author of Clinical Psychology study — is a long-time opponent of RxP. The psychologist told Medscape Medical News he’s concerned about patient safety and “about some of the disingenuous reasons” that psychologists want to prescribe. Among these are the ability to increase status and income, said Robiner, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, and a board member of Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists.

 

Adequate Training?

Only PhD and PsyD psychologists are eligible for RxP training, which entails a master’s in clinical psychopharmacology. After receiving the master’s, they must pass the Psychopharmacology Examination for Psychologists and then are only permitted to prescribe medications for mental health disorders.

They must also obtain a Drug Enforcement Administration license but can’t write prescriptions for schedule 2 medications. In some states, psychologists can prescribe buprenorphine and other opioid use disorder medications.

The APA has developed guidance for master’s programs, which currently number just over a handful in the United States.

At Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, students enrolled in the master’s program — a distance-learning format — complete 10 courses over five 15-week semesters. The curriculum spans a range of topics, from foundational sciences and legal and ethical considerations to strategies for treating specific disorders.

Derek Phillips, PhD, the program’s executive director, said that when he took the position in 2020, enrollment was capped at 45 students, but “we were not routinely enrolling the maximum.” Now, even with class size increased to 60 “we are consistently full and have a waitlist,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Interest is being driven in part by new laws in Colorado (2023) and Utah, said Phillips. But many are enrolling without intending to write a prescription, he said. The degree gives graduates the ability to better collaborate with other clinicians, teach clinical psychopharmacology, and be expert witnesses in medico-legal cases, he said.

In addition, the training gives students “a balanced and thorough biopsychosocial understanding of our patients,” he said. Students also see the “potential of being able to be a ‘one-stop-stop’ of mental health services,” said Phillips.

The American Board of Professional Psychology is developing a board certification in clinical psychopharmacology.

The APA states on its website that prescribing psychologists have “more training in diagnosing and treating (including prescribing) mental health disorders than primary care physicians.”

However, critics argue that the training falls short. Most psychologists, said Robiner, have not completed the undergraduate prerequisites — such as anatomy, physiology, and chemistry — that are required for other prescribing professionals.

In a 2019 article comparing the training of prescribing professionals, Robiner and colleagues reported that psychiatrists undergo 4- to 6-week rotations during medical school and accumulate 8000 clinical hours focused on psychiatric conditions over the course of their 4-year residencies.

States set requirements for clinical hours for prescribing psychologists, but they are generally elective and completed after individuals receive a master’s degree.

Robiner said psychologists aren’t trained in evaluating drug-related adverse events. “If you show a psychologist a rash, they have no idea whether that rash might be a medication adverse effect or poison ivy,” he said.

Trestman pointed out that many psychotropic medications have black box warnings. “The risk of toxicity is by no means trivial, and the majority of people who are seeking care in psychiatry have multiple comorbidities,” he said. “Giving people the equivalent of more or less 10 weeks of training is just woefully inappropriate,” Trestman said.

 

Increase in Access?

Psychology’s main argument for expanding its scope of practice is that it will increase the number of clinicians available to provide behavioral and mental health care.

Critics said that is a failed experiment, in part because so few psychologists have become prescribers, but also because most psychologists practice in the same areas as psychiatrists. Both specialists tend to cluster in urban regions, which already have high clinician density, said Trestman.

Psychologists are not practicing in underserved rural areas, as even APA data show. A 2018 APA snapshot of the workforce found that the highest density of psychologists was in Washington, DC, Massachusetts, and New York. South Carolina, West Virginia and Mississippi had the fewest number of psychologists per 100,000 people.

The University of Washington Rural Health Research Center reported in 2022 that in 2021, almost half of rural counties did not have a psychologist compared with 15.7% of urban counties.

Psychiatrists also are concentrated on the coasts and New England, according to a study by Ohio State researchers. The highest densities were in Washington, DC (79 per 100,000), Massachusetts (45.3), Rhode Island (42.6), Connecticut (38.6) and Vermont (37.7), whereas the lowest densities were in Idaho (11.8), Mississippi (11.8), Wyoming (12.4), Alabama (13.1), and Indiana (13.5). The study estimated that there were 57,163 psychiatrists responsible for the care of 333,287,557 Americans. “Clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors can provide alternative forms of intervention, though access to such services is also poor in rural areas,” wrote the authors.

The APA counters with data it says shows that RxP may have increased access. Using the number of psychology practices as a proxy for supply, the authors reported that practices grew in New Mexico, Illinois, Iowa, and Idaho — states that have implemented prescription privileges. Overall, there was an increase of 0.8047 practices per 100,000 residents per county.

However, the access argument “is seriously challenged by the reality of the limited number of psychologists who complete the pathway to prescribing,” Robiner and his colleague Tanya Tompkins countered in Clinical Psychology. They note that in Idaho — a state with shortages of psychologists and psychiatrists — just 10 of the state’s 615 psychologists had prescriptive authority. An estimated 5131 nonpsychologists are prescribers.

Robiner and Tompkins noted that it’s not clear why so few psychologists are pursuing RxP but that many seem to be unaware of the possibility.

 

Do Benefits Outweigh the Harms? 

There is not a large body of literature assessing the harms or benefits of prescribing privileges for psychologists.

Baker shared several studies by Phillip Hughes, PhD, an outcomes researcher at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In one study, Hughes found that patients of prescribing psychologists had a 24% lower rate of adverse drug events than patients of psychiatrists. Psychologists’ patients had lower rates of psychotropic polypharmacy but similar rates of emergency room use.

In another paper Hughes suggested that deaths attributable to mental illness had declined in New Mexico after it passed its law. There was no change in Louisiana.

With little evidence of harm — and ongoing provider shortages — making use of nonphysician prescribers is gaining traction with policymakers, claims the psychology association’s Baker, adding that in Utah, the Republican governor was the biggest supporter.

But psychiatrists argue that it’s more important to increase their numbers. Congress agreed in 2021 and 2023 to add 1200 new residency slots — in every specialty — to ease physician shortages. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently announced that 70% of the new slots for July 2025 will go to primary care and psychiatry.

“Once those positions are in place, it will be four more years before the first crop of new psychiatrists come out,” noted Trestman. “None of these fixes are quick,” he said.

Baker, Robiner, and Trestman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is a rare condition most commonly observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Patients with calciphylaxis present with necrotic, painful skin lesions secondary to arteriolar calcification, which leads to tissue ischemia and infarction. Because of the non-healing nature of the wounds and need for frequent hospitalizations, there is a significant risk of sepsis with a 1-year mortality rate greater than 50%.

Beyond ESRD, calciphylaxis is also associated with obesity, diabetes, hypoalbuminemia, autoimmune conditions, hepatic disease, malignancies, and dialysis. Rates in patients on dialysis have been increasing, ranging from 1% to 4%. Certain medications have also been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis, including warfarin, steroids, calcium-based phosphate binders, vitamin D, and iron. There is also an association with White individuals and more cases have been reported in females. 

Pathophysiology of this condition includes calcification of the medial layer of arterioles and small arteries near the skin. Damage to vessel endothelium and formation of microthrombi contribute to the ischemia, which results in necrosis and ulceration of the skin. Elevated calcium and phosphate have been associated with these findings; however, these lab abnormalities alone are typically not enough to cause calciphylaxis. Vascular calcification inhibitors such as fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin, and matrix G1a protein may play a role in pathogenesis, with individuals lacking these factors potentially being at a greater risk. Specifically, matrix G1a protein is dependent on vitamin K dependent carboxylation, which may elucidate why warfarin has been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis because of interference with this pathway. 

Upon presentation, patients will have painful ischemic plaques on the skin or painful subcutaneous nodules. Long-standing lesions may have a necrotic eschar or secondary infection, or may be associated with livedo reticularis. Areas with a greater concentration of adipose tissue such as the abdomen, thighs, and buttocks are most commonly affected, but lesions may appear anywhere. A biopsy may be done, but a clinical diagnosis is often sufficient as biopsies carry risks of prolonged healing and infection. 

The differential diagnosis includes warfarin skin necrosis, cholesterol embolization, vasculitis, antiphospholipid syndrome, and cellulitis. Although this is a cutaneous manifestation, calciphylaxis is indicative of a systemic problem and requires multidisciplinary intervention. 

Patients who present with calciphylaxis require a complete metabolic panel, liver function tests, coagulation studies, and albumin tests. Depending on the presentation, imaging studies such as nuclear medicine scans may be used if extensive soft tissue involvement is suspected.

Clinical management includes carefully avoiding electrolyte imbalances, initiating dialysis if necessary, discontinuing potentially offending supplements and medications, and administering proper wound care and pain management. Debridement of necrotic tissue may be necessary and should be initiated early as this has been associated with a 6-month increase in survival. Physicians should have a low threshold for starting antibiotics if secondary infection is suspected, but prophylaxis is not recommended. Sodium thiosulfate has been used off-label, but the mechanism of action is unknown and some meta-analyses indicate this treatment is not significantly associated with improvement of skin lesions. Interventions such as hyperbaric oxygen have also been used, but there is still more research to be done on these modalities. 

The case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. 

References

Kodumudi V et al. Adv Ther. 2020 Dec;37(12):4797-4807. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01504-w.

Seethapathy H et al. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2019 Nov;26(6):484-490. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.09.005.

Turek M et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021 Jun 7:22:e930026. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.930026.

Wen W at al. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e2310068. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10068.

Westphal SG, Plumb T. Calciphylaxis. [Updated 2023 Aug 8]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519020/.

Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is a rare condition most commonly observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Patients with calciphylaxis present with necrotic, painful skin lesions secondary to arteriolar calcification, which leads to tissue ischemia and infarction. Because of the non-healing nature of the wounds and need for frequent hospitalizations, there is a significant risk of sepsis with a 1-year mortality rate greater than 50%.

Beyond ESRD, calciphylaxis is also associated with obesity, diabetes, hypoalbuminemia, autoimmune conditions, hepatic disease, malignancies, and dialysis. Rates in patients on dialysis have been increasing, ranging from 1% to 4%. Certain medications have also been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis, including warfarin, steroids, calcium-based phosphate binders, vitamin D, and iron. There is also an association with White individuals and more cases have been reported in females. 

Pathophysiology of this condition includes calcification of the medial layer of arterioles and small arteries near the skin. Damage to vessel endothelium and formation of microthrombi contribute to the ischemia, which results in necrosis and ulceration of the skin. Elevated calcium and phosphate have been associated with these findings; however, these lab abnormalities alone are typically not enough to cause calciphylaxis. Vascular calcification inhibitors such as fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin, and matrix G1a protein may play a role in pathogenesis, with individuals lacking these factors potentially being at a greater risk. Specifically, matrix G1a protein is dependent on vitamin K dependent carboxylation, which may elucidate why warfarin has been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis because of interference with this pathway. 

Upon presentation, patients will have painful ischemic plaques on the skin or painful subcutaneous nodules. Long-standing lesions may have a necrotic eschar or secondary infection, or may be associated with livedo reticularis. Areas with a greater concentration of adipose tissue such as the abdomen, thighs, and buttocks are most commonly affected, but lesions may appear anywhere. A biopsy may be done, but a clinical diagnosis is often sufficient as biopsies carry risks of prolonged healing and infection. 

The differential diagnosis includes warfarin skin necrosis, cholesterol embolization, vasculitis, antiphospholipid syndrome, and cellulitis. Although this is a cutaneous manifestation, calciphylaxis is indicative of a systemic problem and requires multidisciplinary intervention. 

Patients who present with calciphylaxis require a complete metabolic panel, liver function tests, coagulation studies, and albumin tests. Depending on the presentation, imaging studies such as nuclear medicine scans may be used if extensive soft tissue involvement is suspected.

Clinical management includes carefully avoiding electrolyte imbalances, initiating dialysis if necessary, discontinuing potentially offending supplements and medications, and administering proper wound care and pain management. Debridement of necrotic tissue may be necessary and should be initiated early as this has been associated with a 6-month increase in survival. Physicians should have a low threshold for starting antibiotics if secondary infection is suspected, but prophylaxis is not recommended. Sodium thiosulfate has been used off-label, but the mechanism of action is unknown and some meta-analyses indicate this treatment is not significantly associated with improvement of skin lesions. Interventions such as hyperbaric oxygen have also been used, but there is still more research to be done on these modalities. 

The case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. 

References

Kodumudi V et al. Adv Ther. 2020 Dec;37(12):4797-4807. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01504-w.

Seethapathy H et al. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2019 Nov;26(6):484-490. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.09.005.

Turek M et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021 Jun 7:22:e930026. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.930026.

Wen W at al. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e2310068. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10068.

Westphal SG, Plumb T. Calciphylaxis. [Updated 2023 Aug 8]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519020/.

Calciphylaxis, also known as calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is a rare condition most commonly observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Patients with calciphylaxis present with necrotic, painful skin lesions secondary to arteriolar calcification, which leads to tissue ischemia and infarction. Because of the non-healing nature of the wounds and need for frequent hospitalizations, there is a significant risk of sepsis with a 1-year mortality rate greater than 50%.

Beyond ESRD, calciphylaxis is also associated with obesity, diabetes, hypoalbuminemia, autoimmune conditions, hepatic disease, malignancies, and dialysis. Rates in patients on dialysis have been increasing, ranging from 1% to 4%. Certain medications have also been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis, including warfarin, steroids, calcium-based phosphate binders, vitamin D, and iron. There is also an association with White individuals and more cases have been reported in females. 

Pathophysiology of this condition includes calcification of the medial layer of arterioles and small arteries near the skin. Damage to vessel endothelium and formation of microthrombi contribute to the ischemia, which results in necrosis and ulceration of the skin. Elevated calcium and phosphate have been associated with these findings; however, these lab abnormalities alone are typically not enough to cause calciphylaxis. Vascular calcification inhibitors such as fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin, and matrix G1a protein may play a role in pathogenesis, with individuals lacking these factors potentially being at a greater risk. Specifically, matrix G1a protein is dependent on vitamin K dependent carboxylation, which may elucidate why warfarin has been implicated in the development of calciphylaxis because of interference with this pathway. 

Upon presentation, patients will have painful ischemic plaques on the skin or painful subcutaneous nodules. Long-standing lesions may have a necrotic eschar or secondary infection, or may be associated with livedo reticularis. Areas with a greater concentration of adipose tissue such as the abdomen, thighs, and buttocks are most commonly affected, but lesions may appear anywhere. A biopsy may be done, but a clinical diagnosis is often sufficient as biopsies carry risks of prolonged healing and infection. 

The differential diagnosis includes warfarin skin necrosis, cholesterol embolization, vasculitis, antiphospholipid syndrome, and cellulitis. Although this is a cutaneous manifestation, calciphylaxis is indicative of a systemic problem and requires multidisciplinary intervention. 

Patients who present with calciphylaxis require a complete metabolic panel, liver function tests, coagulation studies, and albumin tests. Depending on the presentation, imaging studies such as nuclear medicine scans may be used if extensive soft tissue involvement is suspected.

Clinical management includes carefully avoiding electrolyte imbalances, initiating dialysis if necessary, discontinuing potentially offending supplements and medications, and administering proper wound care and pain management. Debridement of necrotic tissue may be necessary and should be initiated early as this has been associated with a 6-month increase in survival. Physicians should have a low threshold for starting antibiotics if secondary infection is suspected, but prophylaxis is not recommended. Sodium thiosulfate has been used off-label, but the mechanism of action is unknown and some meta-analyses indicate this treatment is not significantly associated with improvement of skin lesions. Interventions such as hyperbaric oxygen have also been used, but there is still more research to be done on these modalities. 

The case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected]. 

References

Kodumudi V et al. Adv Ther. 2020 Dec;37(12):4797-4807. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01504-w.

Seethapathy H et al. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2019 Nov;26(6):484-490. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.09.005.

Turek M et al. Am J Case Rep. 2021 Jun 7:22:e930026. doi: 10.12659/AJCR.930026.

Wen W at al. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e2310068. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10068.

Westphal SG, Plumb T. Calciphylaxis. [Updated 2023 Aug 8]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519020/.

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

New questions about the landmark trial that launched the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor worldwide are being raised after an investigation uncovered more information about how the PLATO study was conducted.

Peter Doshi, PhD, senior editor at The BMJ, obtained primary records for the trial and unpublished data through a Freedom of Information Act request, and has detailed inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 trial originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The new investigation into the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is published in The BMJ.

The findings come as generic versions of ticagrelor (Brilinta) are expected to become available soon in the United States. Ticagrelor is the only P2Y12 inhibitor still under patent, and in 2022, the United States spent more than $750 million on it, according to the report.

PLATO, sponsored by ticagrelor manufacturer AstraZeneca, included more than 18,000 patients in 43 countries. Investigators reported that ticagrelor reduced deaths from vascular causes, heart attack, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (Plavix). However, in a subgroup analysis, among US patients, there were more deaths in the ticagrelor group, and AstraZeneca failed its first bid for approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 

Failed First Bid for FDA Approval

AstraZeneca resubmitted its application, which was met with objections by some FDA staff members, including medical officer Thomas Marciniak, who called the resubmission “the worst in my experience regarding completeness of the submissions and the sponsor responding completely and accurately to requests,” Doshi reports.

Despite the objections, the FDA in 2011 approved ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome, kicking off intense controversy over the trial, as several other studies have failed to replicate PLATO’s positive results.

Doubts have grown about its apparent advantage over cheaper, off-patent P2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel.

“Critics said it was noteworthy that ticagrelor failed in the US,” Doshi writes, “the only high enrolling country where sites were not monitored by the sponsor itself.” Doshi’s report points out that critics of the trial “highlight that AstraZeneca itself carried out the data monitoring for PLATO except for sites that were monitored by third party contract research organizations. In the four countries exclusively monitored by non-sponsor personnel—Georgia, Israel, Russia, and the US—ticagrelor fared worse.”

Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, said he was initially impressed by the trial results but became skeptical after noticing inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. He filed a complaint with the US District Court in the District of Columbia, suggesting that the cardiovascular events in the study “may have been manipulated.”

 

US Department of Justice Investigation

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation in 2013 and closed it in 2014 with no further action. Serebruany continues to publish critiques of the trial 15 years later but told The BMJ he has little hope that the questions will be resolved unless the DOJ re-engages with an investigation.

Doshi also points out discrepancies in the data reported. In the 2009 paper, published as an intent-to-treat analysis, investigators said there were 905 total deaths from any cause among all randomized patients. “An internal company report states, however, that 983 patients had died at this point. While 33 deaths occurred after the follow-up period, the NEJM tally still leaves out 45 deaths ‘discovered after withdrawal of consent,’” he reports.

The NEJM responded to Doshi that while it didn’t dispute the error in the number of deaths, it was uncertain about publishing a correction, citing new — not yet published — guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin told The BMJ that “for older manuscripts, correction is not necessarily appropriate unless there would be an effect on clinical practice.”

Doshi’s investigation includes an interview with Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, who said he was “increasingly disturbed by how trial after trial came out as being not dramatically positive in any way.” Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor’s recommendation in guidelines, according to the report.

AstraZeneca declined to be interviewed for the BMJ investigation, according to Doshi, and a spokesperson from the company told the journal by email that they have “nothing to add,” directing editors to its 2014 public statement after the DOJ’s investigation into PLATO. The BMJ said PLATO trial co-chairs Robert A. Harrington, MD, and Lars Wallentin, MD, did not respond to The BMJ’s requests for comment.

 

Will the Guidelines Be Changed Now?

“I know and have worked with Drs Wallentin and Harrington,” Bates told Medscape Medical News, “and find them to be honest, intelligent clinical scientists with the highest ethical standards who manage conflicts of interest as well as can be done in the clinical research arena, where industry support is required to develop new knowledge,” he said.

“If there is a concern that AstraZeneca was manipulating the dataset and FDA submission, that is an important issue,” Bates said. “The US paradox and the failure of any other antiplatelet trial to find a comparative mortality advantage are two unexplained issues with PLATO that provide good fodder for conspiracy theories. I agree with the NEJM that this trial is 15 years old and may not be worth readjudicating in the current treatment era.”

Other calls for revisiting guidelines have come after disappointing postlicensure studies have repeatedly demonstrated that ticagrelor has “similar efficacy to clopidogrel but with increased bleeding and [dyspnea],” Doshi reports.

“My concern is the marketing spin by AstraZeneca and the promotion of ticagrelor by six to eight ‘thought leaders’ consistently funded by AstraZeneca over the past 10 years,” said Bates. “They have flooded the literature with supportive subset and post hoc analyses, review articles, and ‘meta-analyses’ flawed by selection and intellectual bias, and public interviews that consistently discount the findings of the many subsequent randomized controlled trials that have not supported the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel or prasugrel.”

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a key biomarker for diagnosing heart failure, show a nearly fourfold increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in at-risk individuals. The utility of this biomarker was particularly evident in older adults and when serum-based measurements were used.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of prospective cohort, case-cohort, or nested case-control studies to examine the association between NT-proBNP and the incidence of AF.
• They also explored the potential of NT-proBNP in improving risk prediction models for AF.
• Overall, 136,089 adults were included from 16 cohorts, and 8017 cases of incident AF were reported over a median follow-up of 4-20 years.
• Most of the included cohorts were from Europe (n = 12), followed by America (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1).
• The accuracy of the risk prediction models was evaluated using C-indexes, with values in the range of 0.50-0.70, low accuracy; 0.70-0.90, moderate accuracy; and > 0.90, high accuracy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Elevated NT-proBNP levels showed a strong association with the risk for AF, with individuals in the highest quintile of NT-proBNP facing a 3.84-fold higher risk for incident AF (pooled relative risk [RR], 3.84; 95% CI, 3.03-4.87) than those in the lowest quintile.
• The risk increased by 9% for each 10 pg/mL increase in NT-proBNP (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14), with a significant nonlinear dose-response association found between NT-proBNP and the risk for AF (P for nonlinearity < .001).
• The association was stronger in the subgroups of older adults and when the biomarker was measured in serum samples.
• The addition of NT-proBNP to traditional risk prediction models for AF may improve predictive accuracy, with the ΔC-indexes ranging from 0.010 to 0.060.

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of NT-proBNP in enhancing AF risk stratification deserves greater attention, with potential expansion to routine health screening,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wanyue Wang, Department of Epidemiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China, and was published online on December 06, 2024, in Heart.

LIMITATIONS:

Significant heterogeneity was observed in this meta-analysis, with the subgroup articles only providing exploratory and indicative findings. Due to the observational nature of this study, residual confounding could not be excluded. None of the prospective studies included differentiated subtypes of AF, such as paroxysmal and asymptomatic forms, which might have influenced the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a key biomarker for diagnosing heart failure, show a nearly fourfold increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in at-risk individuals. The utility of this biomarker was particularly evident in older adults and when serum-based measurements were used.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of prospective cohort, case-cohort, or nested case-control studies to examine the association between NT-proBNP and the incidence of AF.
• They also explored the potential of NT-proBNP in improving risk prediction models for AF.
• Overall, 136,089 adults were included from 16 cohorts, and 8017 cases of incident AF were reported over a median follow-up of 4-20 years.
• Most of the included cohorts were from Europe (n = 12), followed by America (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1).
• The accuracy of the risk prediction models was evaluated using C-indexes, with values in the range of 0.50-0.70, low accuracy; 0.70-0.90, moderate accuracy; and > 0.90, high accuracy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Elevated NT-proBNP levels showed a strong association with the risk for AF, with individuals in the highest quintile of NT-proBNP facing a 3.84-fold higher risk for incident AF (pooled relative risk [RR], 3.84; 95% CI, 3.03-4.87) than those in the lowest quintile.
• The risk increased by 9% for each 10 pg/mL increase in NT-proBNP (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14), with a significant nonlinear dose-response association found between NT-proBNP and the risk for AF (P for nonlinearity < .001).
• The association was stronger in the subgroups of older adults and when the biomarker was measured in serum samples.
• The addition of NT-proBNP to traditional risk prediction models for AF may improve predictive accuracy, with the ΔC-indexes ranging from 0.010 to 0.060.

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of NT-proBNP in enhancing AF risk stratification deserves greater attention, with potential expansion to routine health screening,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wanyue Wang, Department of Epidemiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China, and was published online on December 06, 2024, in Heart.

LIMITATIONS:

Significant heterogeneity was observed in this meta-analysis, with the subgroup articles only providing exploratory and indicative findings. Due to the observational nature of this study, residual confounding could not be excluded. None of the prospective studies included differentiated subtypes of AF, such as paroxysmal and asymptomatic forms, which might have influenced the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a key biomarker for diagnosing heart failure, show a nearly fourfold increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in at-risk individuals. The utility of this biomarker was particularly evident in older adults and when serum-based measurements were used.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of prospective cohort, case-cohort, or nested case-control studies to examine the association between NT-proBNP and the incidence of AF.
• They also explored the potential of NT-proBNP in improving risk prediction models for AF.
• Overall, 136,089 adults were included from 16 cohorts, and 8017 cases of incident AF were reported over a median follow-up of 4-20 years.
• Most of the included cohorts were from Europe (n = 12), followed by America (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1).
• The accuracy of the risk prediction models was evaluated using C-indexes, with values in the range of 0.50-0.70, low accuracy; 0.70-0.90, moderate accuracy; and > 0.90, high accuracy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Elevated NT-proBNP levels showed a strong association with the risk for AF, with individuals in the highest quintile of NT-proBNP facing a 3.84-fold higher risk for incident AF (pooled relative risk [RR], 3.84; 95% CI, 3.03-4.87) than those in the lowest quintile.
• The risk increased by 9% for each 10 pg/mL increase in NT-proBNP (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14), with a significant nonlinear dose-response association found between NT-proBNP and the risk for AF (P for nonlinearity < .001).
• The association was stronger in the subgroups of older adults and when the biomarker was measured in serum samples.
• The addition of NT-proBNP to traditional risk prediction models for AF may improve predictive accuracy, with the ΔC-indexes ranging from 0.010 to 0.060.

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of NT-proBNP in enhancing AF risk stratification deserves greater attention, with potential expansion to routine health screening,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Wanyue Wang, Department of Epidemiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China, and was published online on December 06, 2024, in Heart.

LIMITATIONS:

Significant heterogeneity was observed in this meta-analysis, with the subgroup articles only providing exploratory and indicative findings. Due to the observational nature of this study, residual confounding could not be excluded. None of the prospective studies included differentiated subtypes of AF, such as paroxysmal and asymptomatic forms, which might have influenced the observed outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive.