The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved elacestrant (Orserdu, Stemline Therapeutics) for postmenopausal women or men with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer that progressed on at least one line of endocrine therapy.

The agency also approved the Guardant360 CDx assay as a companion diagnostic to identify breast cancer patients who meet the treatment requirements, according to the agency’s press release announcing the approval.

The novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader was approved based on the phase 3 EMERALD trial, which included 478 postmenopausal women and men with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, about half of whom had ESR1 mutations. Patients had progressed on one or two prior lines of endocrine therapy, including one containing a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Participants could also have had one prior line of chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting.

Participants were randomized 1:1 to either elacestrant 345 mg orally once daily or investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, which included fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor.

In the 228 patients (48%) with ESR1 mutations, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months with elacestrant versus 1.9 months in the fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor arm (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .0005). Investigators observed no statistically significant PFS difference between the treatment arms in patients who didn’t have the mutation.
 

Fair comparison?

In June, experts raised concerns about the adequacy of the “standard of care” control arm in EMERALD, particularly that single agents were used at a time when combination therapy is becoming more common.

“The expression ‘standard of care’ is applied generously, as the control arm is restricted” to single agents and no combinations, which “may have led to a substandard” comparison group, Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, University of California, San Francisco, said in an editorial quoted in the piece.

EMERALD investigators acknowledged that there were issues with the control group, noting that in the “United States and Europe, combination therapy with fulvestrant” – instead of single agents – “is increasingly being used as the second-line [standard of care] treatment.”

However, the goal of the study “was to compare a novel endocrine therapy vs. currently available endocrine therapies,” not combination regimens, the investigators said.

Also, “the benefit of elacestrant over fulvestrant and AIs [aromatase inhibitors] in our monotherapy trial ... suggests that incorporating elacestrant as the preferred endocrine therapy backbone in future earlier-line combination studies is a promising strategy.”
 

Lipid monitoring necessary

The most common adverse events with elacestrant, occurring in 10% or more of patients, are musculoskeletal pain, nausea, increased cholesterol, increased AST, increased triglycerides, fatigue, decreased hemoglobin, vomiting, increased ALT, decreased sodium, increased creatinine, decreased appetite, diarrhea, headache, constipation, abdominal pain, hot flush, and dyspepsia, according to labeling.

Labeling warns that elacestrant “may cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Monitor lipid profile prior to starting treatment and periodically thereafter.”

The recommended elacestrant dose is the trial dose, 345 mg orally with food once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Practice Gap

Hemostasis after cutaneous surgery typically can be aided by mechanical occlusion with petrolatum and gauze known as a pressure bandage. However, in certain scenarios such as bone bleeding or irregularly shaped areas (eg, conchal bowl), difficulty applying a pressure bandage necessitates alternative hemostatic measures.¹ In those instances, physical hemostatic agents, such as gelatin, oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharide spheres, hydrophilic polymers with potassium salts, microfibrillar collagen, and chitin, also can be used.² However, those agents are expensive and often adhere to wound edges, inducing repeat trauma with removal. To avoid such concerns, we propose the use of bone wax as an effective hemostatic technique.

The Technique

When secondary intention healing is chosen or a temporary bandage needs to be placed, we offer the use of bone wax as an alternative to help achieve hemostasis. Bone wax—a combination of beeswax, isopropyl palmitate, and a stabilizing agent such as almond oils or sterilized salicylic acid³—helps achieve hemostasis by purely mechanical means. It is malleable and can be easily adapted to the architecture of the surgical site (Figure 1). The bone wax can be applied immediately following surgery and removed during bandage change.

Practice Implications

Use of bone wax as a physical hemostatic agent provides a practical alternative to other options commonly used in dermatologic surgery for deep wounds or irregular surfaces. It offers several advantages.

Bone wax is not absorbed and does not adhere to wound surfaces, which makes removal easy and painless. Furthermore, bone wax allows for excellent growth of granulation tissue² (Figure 2), most likely due to the healing and emollient properties of the beeswax and the moist occlusive environment created by the bone wax.

Additional advantages are its low cost, especially compared to other hemostatic agents, and long shelf-life (approximately 5 years).² Furthermore, in scenarios when cutaneous tumors extend into the calvarium, bone wax can prevent air emboli from entering noncollapsible emissary veins.⁴

When bone wax is used as a temporary measure in a dermatologic setting, complications inherent to its use in bone healing (eg, granulomatous reaction, infection)—for which it is left in place indefinitely—are avoided.

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

ORLANDO – From new tools for diagnosis to new treatment options, the science on wound care continues to advance, providing clinicians with better options for their patients, Hadar Lev-Tov, MD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgery Conference.

At the meeting, Dr. Lev-Tov, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, reviewed some of the latest developments in several conditions involving wound care.

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
 

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.
 

A mandatory cognitive screening policy targeting older drivers appeared to lower car crashes involving people over 70, according to results from a large population-based study using data from Japan.

But the same study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, also reported a concurrent increase in pedestrian and cycling injuries, possibly because more older former drivers were getting around by alternative means. That finding echoed a 2012 study from Denmark, which also looked at the effects of an age-based cognitive screening policy for older drivers, and saw more fatal road injuries among older people who were not driving.

While some governments, including those of Denmark, Taiwan, and Japan, have implemented age-based cognitive screening for older drivers, there has been little evidence to date that such policies improve road safety. Guidelines issued in 2010 by the American Academy of Neurology discourage age-based screening, advising instead that people diagnosed with cognitive disorders be carefully evaluated for driving fitness and recommending one widely used scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating, as useful in identifying potentially unsafe drivers.
 

Japan’s national screening policy: Did it work?

The new study, led by Haruhiko Inada, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, used national crash data from Japan, where since 2017 all drivers 75 and older not only must take cognitive tests measuring temporal orientation and memory at license renewal, but are also referred for medical evaluation if they fail them. People receiving a subsequent dementia diagnosis can have their licenses suspended or revoked.

Dr. Inada and his colleagues looked at national data from nearly 603,000 police-reported vehicle collisions and nearly 197,000 pedestrian or cyclist road injuries between March 2012 and December 2019, all involving people aged 70 and older. To assess the screening policy’s impact, the researchers calculated estimated monthly collision or injury incidence rates per 100,000 person-years. This way, they could “control for secular trends that were unaffected by the policy, such as the decreasing incidence of motor vehicle collisions year by year,” the researchers explained.

After the screening was implemented, cumulative estimated collisions among drivers 75 or older decreased by 3,670 (95% confidence interval, 5,125-2,104), while reported pedestrian or cyclist injuries increased by an estimated 959 (95% CI, 24-1,834). Dr. Inada and colleagues found that crashes declined among men but not women, noting also that more older men than women are licensed to drive in Japan. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries were highest among men aged 80-84, and women aged 80 and older.

“Cognitively screening older drivers at license renewal and promoting voluntary surrender of licenses may prevent motor vehicle collisions,” Dr. Inada and his colleagues concluded. “However, they are associated with an increase in road injuries for older pedestrians and cyclists. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of mitigation measures, such as alternative, safe transportation, and accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists.”
 

No definitive answers

Two investigators who have studied cognitive screening related to road safety were contacted for commentary on the study findings.

Anu Siren, PhD, professor of gerontology at Tampere (Finland) University, who in 2012 reported higher injuries after implementation of older-driver cognitive screening in Denmark, commented that the new study, while benefiting from a much larger data set than earlier studies, still “fails to show that decrease in collisions is because ‘unfit’ drivers were removed from the road. But it does confirm previous findings about how strict screening policies make people shift from cars to unprotected modes of transportation,” which are riskier.

In studies measuring driving safety, the usual definition of risk is incidents per exposure, Dr. Siren noted. In Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study, “the incident measure, or numerator, is the number of collisions. The exposure measure or denominator is population. Because the study uses population and not driver licenses (or distance traveled) as an exposure measure, the observed decrease in collisions does not say much about how the collision risk develops after the implementation of screening.”

Older driver screening “is likely to cause some older persons to cease from driving and probably continue to travel as unprotected road users,” Dr. Siren continued. “Similar to what we found [in 2012], the injury rates for pedestrians and cyclists went up after the introduction of screening, which suggests that screening indirectly causes increasing number of injuries among older unprotected road users.”

Matthew Rizzo, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurological sciences at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and codirector of the Nebraska Neuroscience Alliance in Omaha, Neb., and the lead author of the 2010 AAN guidelines on cognitive impairment and driving risk, cautioned against ageism in designing policies meant to protect motorists.

“We find some erratic/weak effects of age here and there, but the big effects we consistently find are from cognitive and visual decline – which is somewhat correlated with age, but with huge variance,” Dr. Rizzo said. “It is hard to say what an optimal age threshold for risk would be, and if 75 is it.”

U.S. crash data from the last decade points to drivers 80 and older as significantly more accident-prone than those in their 70s, or even late 70s, Dr. Rizzo noted. Moreover, “willingness to get on the road, number of miles driven, type of road (urban, rural, highway, commercial, residential), type of vehicle driven, traffic, and environment (day, night, weather), et cetera, are all factors to consider in driving risk and restriction,” he said.

Dr. Rizzo added that the 2010 AAN guidelines might need to be revisited in light of newer vehicle safety systems and automation.

Dr. Inada and colleagues’ study was funded by Japanese government grants, and Dr. Inada and his coauthors reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Siren and Dr. Rizzo reported no financial conflicts of interest.