An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is needed to further improve its effectiveness, according to two recent reviews published in Cell Host and Microbe.

Both research teams agree that more needs to be known about how various underexplored factors – such as the patient’s diet and genetic background, how closely the donor’s microbial composition matches the patient’s existing microbiome, and the presence of nonbacterial gut inhabitants like viruses and fungi – affect FMT success, according to a press release.

FMT is most often used to treat recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections, which don’t always respond to antibiotics. Success rates range from 60% to 90%, depending on the administration route and study design, notes an international research team led by Abbas Yadegar, PhD, a medical bacteriologist at the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran.

The understanding of how FMT works is incomplete, however, and the reasons some patients fail to benefit is unclear, note Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. Little attention has been paid to the role that other components of the patient’s microbiome, along with outside factors, play in the treatment’s success, they add.

“We wanted other researchers to look beyond changes in stool microbial composition and function, which have been the focus of research in the past few years,” Dr. Yadegar’s team said in a statement provided to this news organization.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ review of more than 130 studies summarizes recent evidence on the mechanisms contributing to FMT success against recurrent C. difficile infection, highlights knowledge gaps, and proposes future research directions in the field.

Factors that influence FMT’s effectiveness and the potential the procedure holds for treatment of other diseases associated with gut dysbiosis are the subject of a review of 149 studies by a team of researchers led by Serena Porcari, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, in Rome.

“Our main goal was not only to unravel the different mechanisms of FMT efficacy but also to introduce some mindset shifts that are needed to bring FMT forward, mainly covering the gap that exists between basic scientists and clinicians,” Gianluca Ianiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher in digestive diseases who works with Dr. Porcari and is the review’s lead author, told this news organization.
 

Engraftment may influence success

Engraftment of donor microbial strains in recipients appears to be key to the therapeutic success of FMT, both reviews note.

Three factors influence engraftment: the donor’s bacteria fitness relative to the recipient, the bacteria already present in the recipient, and whether antibiotics are used prior to FMT to open a niche for the incoming donor microbes, according to Dr. Yadegar and colleagues.

How to calculate strain engraftment has not yet been standardized in the field, and the number of strains detected in the recipient’s fecal sample is dependent on the depth of sequencing techniques, Dr. Porcari and colleagues note.

The use of whole-genome sequencing has enabled more precise evaluation of engraftment, they add.

“With this approach, microbial engraftment has been associated with clinical success, regardless of the disease, in a large metagenomic metanalysis of 24 FMT trials and almost 1,400 fecal samples,” Dr. Porcari and colleagues write. However, these results have not been replicated, likely because of differences between the studies.

More study on the topic is needed, both articles note.

“Because the recent metagenomics studies compared pre- and post-FMT only in cases with successful treatment outcomes, it is not possible to link engraftment to clinical outcomes,” Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write in their statement to this news organization.
 

A closer look at donor-recipient pairings

Clinicians usually enlist healthy, carefully screened individuals as FMT donors.

However, both research groups conclude that fine-scale taxonomic and metabolic analyses of donor and recipient microbiomes would better inform clinical decisions, especially when treating diseases other than C. difficile.

This may call for a more personalized approach to choosing donor-recipient pairings. Investigators should assess the patient’s diet and genetic background and how closely the donor’s microbiome matches that of the patient.

“Most studies focused on profiling stool samples before and after FMT without also including functional analyses; therefore, there are still a lot of aspects of host microbial interactions that remain unknown,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues in their statement.

Ecologic factors, including diet and host genetics, are often not included in clinical studies of C. difficile, but they “may potentially be the missing links” to treatment failure in the small portion of patients whose condition doesn’t respond to FMT, they write.

Pairing donor-recipient combinations on the basis of dietary patterns and preferences could improve FMT efficacy because the donor microbiota would be preadapted to the recipient’s diet, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write. The team is examining how donor and recipient diet may affect outcomes.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues add that while some studies support the existence of shared characteristics that make up super-donors, others found that the optimal donor is more patient specific. They call for personalized selection strategies that employ microbiome sequencing tools rather than a “one stool fits all” approach.

Currently, many clinicians aren’t familiar with microbiome sequencing and analysis, but they’ll need to be in the near future, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

“Identifying microbiome characteristics that maximize strain engraftment in the FMT will allow clinicians to select the best donor for each single patient,” they write.
 

The possible role of viruses and fungi

In FMT research, investigators tend to focus on the bacteria in the human microbiome. However, viruses and fungi also appear to play a role, both articles note.

“Other microbial kingdoms that inhabit the intestine should be taken into account when considering predictors of post-FMT microbial transfer,” write Dr. Porcari and colleagues.

Although few studies have examined the gut virome’s impact on FMT effectiveness against C. difficile, the existing research, although limited, indicates that bacteriophage viruses could play a role, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues note. For example, high levels of donor-derived Caudoviralesbacteriophages in recipients were associated with FMT efficacy in one preliminary study, they write.

In a small human study, fecal filtrate from healthy donors who had bacteriophages but no live bacteria successfully treated five patients with recurrent C. difficile infection, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues write.

“Therefore, the idea that viruses may play a role is very provocative,” write Dr. Yadegar’s team in their statement.

It’s important to note that these studies are associative, which means they can’t definitively answer the question of how or whether viruses play a role, Dr. Yadegar’s team added.

Researchers “know even less about how fungi may or may not play a role,” write Dr. Yadegar and colleagues. However, in early research that involved patients who had successfully undergone FMT for C. difficile, there was higher relative abundance of Saccharomyces and Aspergillus, whereas Candida, if prominent, may impede response, they write in their article.

Additionally, to explore whether live bacteria are necessary for FMT to work, Dr. Yadegar and colleagues informed this news organization that they are conducting a study “comparing traditional FMT to a fecal filtrate that contains no live bacteria, but has all other components, to see if we can achieve similar success rates in recurrent C. difficile infection.”
 

Repeat treatment for sustained response

Dr. Yadegar’s team offered another important takeaway: A single FMT treatment will not sustain a positive response, especially when treating chronic noncommunicable conditions in which intestinal dysbiosis may play a role. Repeat treatment will be needed, as with other chronic conditions. This has been shown even in C. difficile infection.

“Recent studies have documented a significant advantage of repeated FMT over single FMT on the cure rates of recurrent C. difficile,” especially for patients with inflammatory bowel disorder, Dr. Yadegar’s team told this news organization.

“What we don’t know is which patient is likely to respond to microbial-based therapy, or what the dose or frequency should be, or which bacteria are responsible for the effects,” Dr. Yadegar and team said.

Dr. Porcari and colleagues are examining whether FMT could be refined to improve its success against other diseases. This may involve selecting specific donors, monitoring the gut microbiome of both donors and recipients, or using a specific means of delivery, such as lyophilized capsules, Dr. Ianiro said.

A response to FMT for chronic, noncommunicable disorders typically is not sustained long term, note Dr. Porcari and colleagues. However, they add that “sequential transplants have been applied in this setting with promising results, suggesting that chronic modulation of the patient microbiome may be beneficial in noncommunicable chronic disorders.” Dr. Porcari and colleagues point to the success of repeated, long-term FMT in studies of patients with ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome.

The use of cutting-edge technologies for microbiome assessment and a change in the view of FMT as only an acute, single-use therapy could improve FMT protocols and outcomes for noncommunicable conditions, they write.
 

Expanding FMT beyond C. difficile

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues’ article “really breaks down what is known about the mechanisms of FMT in C. difficile infection, which is important as other live biotherapeutic products are developed,” Colleen Kelly, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who was not involved with the reviews, said in an interview.

Dr. Yadegar and colleagues concur. They note in a press release that as the mechanisms behind FMT success are understood, that information should be used to design new standardized therapies.

“Although highly effective, there are substantial drawbacks with [FMT], including infectious risks and sparse long-term safety data,” they write. “Better treatment options for recurrent C. difficile infections that are targeted, safe, and donor-independent are thus desired.”

In December 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first fecal microbiota product, Rebyota, to prevent recurrence of C. difficile. More recently, in April 2023, the FDA approved Vowst, a pill for treating recurrent C. difficile infections.

Dr. Kelly also noted that the article by Dr. Yadegar and colleagues “may help us understand why a small percentage of patients fail to achieve cure after FMT.”

Regarding Dr. Porcari and colleagues’ article, Dr. Kelly said, “There is a lot of hope that FMT or other gut microbiome therapies will be beneficial for conditions outside of C. difficile.

“They do a good job reviewing the state of the science of FMT and highlight the many unknowns around the use of FMT in conditions outside of C. difficile,” added Dr. Kelly, who has been using FMT to treat C. difficile for more than 15 years.

Data supporting FMT for conditions such as ulcerative colitis and autism are compelling, Dr. Kelly acknowledged. But in her view, FMT isn’t ready for “prime time” outside of C. difficile – at least not yet.

“Academic investigators and those in industry are actively conducting research in many non–C. difficile indications, and I predict we will see the emergence of gut microbiome–based therapies for other indications within the next 5-10 years,” Dr. Kelly said.

Dr. Yadegar reports no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor of the Yadegar study has served on the adjudication board for Finch Therapeutics and has received consulting fees and a speaking honorarium from Rebiotix/Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Ianiro reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kelly has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals and is one of the principal investigators for the FMT National Patient Registry funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study published in the journal Academic Pediatrics suggests that during health maintenance visits clinicians are giving too little attention to their patients’ sleep problems. Using a questionnaire, researchers surveyed patients’ caregivers’ concerns and observations regarding a variety of sleep problems. The investigators then reviewed the clinicians’ documentation of what transpired at the visit and found that while over 90% of the caregivers reported their child had at least one sleep related problem, only 20% of the clinicians documented the problem. And, only 12% documented a management plan regarding the sleep concerns.

I am always bit skeptical about studies that rely on clinicians’ “documentation” because clinicians are busy people and don’t always remember to record things they’ve discussed. You and I know that the lawyers’ dictum “if it wasn’t documented it didn’t happen” is rubbish. However, I still find the basic finding of this study concerning. If we are failing to ask about or even listen to caregivers’ concerns about something as important as sleep, we are missing the boat ... a very large boat.

How could this be happening? First, sleep may have fallen victim to the bloated list of topics that well-intentioned single-issue preventive health advocates have tacked on to the health maintenance visit. It’s a burden that few of us can manage without cutting corners.

However, it is more troubling to me that so many clinicians have chosen sleep as one of those corners to cut. This oversight suggests to me that too many of us have failed to realize from our own observations that sleep is incredibly important to the health of our patients ... and to ourselves.

I will admit that I am extremely sensitive to the importance of sleep. Some might say my sensitivity borders on an obsession. But, the literature is clear and becoming more voluminous every year that sleep is important to the mental health of our patients and their caregivers to things like obesity, to symptoms that suggest an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, to school success, and to migraine ... to name just a few.

It may be that most of us realize the importance of sleep but feel our society has allowed itself to become so sleep deprived that there is little chance we can turn the ship around by spending just a few minutes trying help a family undo their deeply ingrained sleep unfriendly habits.

I am tempted to join those of you who see sleep depravation as a “why bother” issue. But, I’m not ready to throw in the towel. There are things that we as clinicians can do to help families address poor sleep hygiene. Even simply sharing your observations about the importance of sleep in the whole wellness picture may have an effect.

One of the benefits of retiring in the same community in which I practiced for over 40 years is that at least every month or two I encounter a parent who thanks me for sharing my views on the importance of sleep. They may not recall the little tip or two I gave them, but it seems that urging them to put sleep near the top of their lifestyle priority list has made the difference for them.

If I have failed in getting you to join me in my crusade against sleep deprivation, at least take to heart the most basic message of this study. That is that the investigators found only 20% of clinicians were addressing a concern that 90% of the caregivers shared. It happened to be sleep, but it could have been anything.

The authors of the study suggest that we need to be more assiduous in our screening for sleep problems. On the contrary. You and I know we don’t need more screening. We just need to be better listeners.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A recent study published in the journal Academic Pediatrics suggests that during health maintenance visits clinicians are giving too little attention to their patients’ sleep problems. Using a questionnaire, researchers surveyed patients’ caregivers’ concerns and observations regarding a variety of sleep problems. The investigators then reviewed the clinicians’ documentation of what transpired at the visit and found that while over 90% of the caregivers reported their child had at least one sleep related problem, only 20% of the clinicians documented the problem. And, only 12% documented a management plan regarding the sleep concerns.

I am always bit skeptical about studies that rely on clinicians’ “documentation” because clinicians are busy people and don’t always remember to record things they’ve discussed. You and I know that the lawyers’ dictum “if it wasn’t documented it didn’t happen” is rubbish. However, I still find the basic finding of this study concerning. If we are failing to ask about or even listen to caregivers’ concerns about something as important as sleep, we are missing the boat ... a very large boat.

How could this be happening? First, sleep may have fallen victim to the bloated list of topics that well-intentioned single-issue preventive health advocates have tacked on to the health maintenance visit. It’s a burden that few of us can manage without cutting corners.

However, it is more troubling to me that so many clinicians have chosen sleep as one of those corners to cut. This oversight suggests to me that too many of us have failed to realize from our own observations that sleep is incredibly important to the health of our patients ... and to ourselves.

I will admit that I am extremely sensitive to the importance of sleep. Some might say my sensitivity borders on an obsession. But, the literature is clear and becoming more voluminous every year that sleep is important to the mental health of our patients and their caregivers to things like obesity, to symptoms that suggest an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, to school success, and to migraine ... to name just a few.

It may be that most of us realize the importance of sleep but feel our society has allowed itself to become so sleep deprived that there is little chance we can turn the ship around by spending just a few minutes trying help a family undo their deeply ingrained sleep unfriendly habits.

I am tempted to join those of you who see sleep depravation as a “why bother” issue. But, I’m not ready to throw in the towel. There are things that we as clinicians can do to help families address poor sleep hygiene. Even simply sharing your observations about the importance of sleep in the whole wellness picture may have an effect.

One of the benefits of retiring in the same community in which I practiced for over 40 years is that at least every month or two I encounter a parent who thanks me for sharing my views on the importance of sleep. They may not recall the little tip or two I gave them, but it seems that urging them to put sleep near the top of their lifestyle priority list has made the difference for them.

If I have failed in getting you to join me in my crusade against sleep deprivation, at least take to heart the most basic message of this study. That is that the investigators found only 20% of clinicians were addressing a concern that 90% of the caregivers shared. It happened to be sleep, but it could have been anything.

The authors of the study suggest that we need to be more assiduous in our screening for sleep problems. On the contrary. You and I know we don’t need more screening. We just need to be better listeners.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A recent study published in the journal Academic Pediatrics suggests that during health maintenance visits clinicians are giving too little attention to their patients’ sleep problems. Using a questionnaire, researchers surveyed patients’ caregivers’ concerns and observations regarding a variety of sleep problems. The investigators then reviewed the clinicians’ documentation of what transpired at the visit and found that while over 90% of the caregivers reported their child had at least one sleep related problem, only 20% of the clinicians documented the problem. And, only 12% documented a management plan regarding the sleep concerns.

I am always bit skeptical about studies that rely on clinicians’ “documentation” because clinicians are busy people and don’t always remember to record things they’ve discussed. You and I know that the lawyers’ dictum “if it wasn’t documented it didn’t happen” is rubbish. However, I still find the basic finding of this study concerning. If we are failing to ask about or even listen to caregivers’ concerns about something as important as sleep, we are missing the boat ... a very large boat.

How could this be happening? First, sleep may have fallen victim to the bloated list of topics that well-intentioned single-issue preventive health advocates have tacked on to the health maintenance visit. It’s a burden that few of us can manage without cutting corners.

However, it is more troubling to me that so many clinicians have chosen sleep as one of those corners to cut. This oversight suggests to me that too many of us have failed to realize from our own observations that sleep is incredibly important to the health of our patients ... and to ourselves.

I will admit that I am extremely sensitive to the importance of sleep. Some might say my sensitivity borders on an obsession. But, the literature is clear and becoming more voluminous every year that sleep is important to the mental health of our patients and their caregivers to things like obesity, to symptoms that suggest an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, to school success, and to migraine ... to name just a few.

It may be that most of us realize the importance of sleep but feel our society has allowed itself to become so sleep deprived that there is little chance we can turn the ship around by spending just a few minutes trying help a family undo their deeply ingrained sleep unfriendly habits.

I am tempted to join those of you who see sleep depravation as a “why bother” issue. But, I’m not ready to throw in the towel. There are things that we as clinicians can do to help families address poor sleep hygiene. Even simply sharing your observations about the importance of sleep in the whole wellness picture may have an effect.

One of the benefits of retiring in the same community in which I practiced for over 40 years is that at least every month or two I encounter a parent who thanks me for sharing my views on the importance of sleep. They may not recall the little tip or two I gave them, but it seems that urging them to put sleep near the top of their lifestyle priority list has made the difference for them.

If I have failed in getting you to join me in my crusade against sleep deprivation, at least take to heart the most basic message of this study. That is that the investigators found only 20% of clinicians were addressing a concern that 90% of the caregivers shared. It happened to be sleep, but it could have been anything.

The authors of the study suggest that we need to be more assiduous in our screening for sleep problems. On the contrary. You and I know we don’t need more screening. We just need to be better listeners.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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