Ob.Gyn. News

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Buprenorphine use, compared with methadone use, in pregnancy has been linked with a slightly lower risk of major congenital malformations in a new study of medications for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues published the findings in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The lower risk for buprenorphine was small (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.97), and methadone use should not be ruled out on that basis, the authors wrote. For some women, particularly those on stable treatment before pregnancy or women who do not respond well to buprenorphine, methadone may be the better choice, they explained.
 

Either Medication Better Than Not Treating

The authors noted that either medication “is strongly recommended over untreated OUD during pregnancy.”

JAMA Internal Medicine Deputy Editor Deborah Grady, MD, MPH, with the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that recommendation in an editor’s note, highlighting that treatment for OUD is critical to prevent infections, overdose, and death in pregnant women as well as neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome and fetal death.

She stressed that internists and other primary care physicians have a key role in ensuring pregnant women with OUD receive appropriate treatment.

Given the importance of the issue, she wrote, “we have taken the unusual step of publishing two accompanying invited commentaries.”

Two developments may help increase use of buprenorphine, the study authors wrote. One is a recent study showing lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes when buprenorphine is used during pregnancy compared with methadone. Another is the removal last year of the prescribing waiver for buprenorphine.
 

Study Included Medicaid Data Over 18 Years

The population-based cohort study used data from publicly insured Medicaid beneficiaries from 2000 to 2018. Pregnancies with enrollment from 90 days before pregnancy through 1 month after delivery and first-trimester use of buprenorphine or methadone were included (n = 13,360). The data were linked with infants’ health data.

The study group included 9,514 pregnancies with first-trimester buprenorphine exposure and 3,846 with methadone exposure. The risk of malformations overall was 50.9 (95% CI, 46.5-55.3) per 1000 pregnancies for buprenorphine and 60.6 (95% CI, 53.0-68.1) per 1000 pregnancies for methadone.

Major malformations were any cardiac malformations, ventricular septal defect, secundum atrial septal defect/nonprematurity-related patent foramen ovale, neural tube defects, oral clefts, and clubfoot.
 

Two Invited Commentaries Urge Caution in Interpretation

The two invited commentaries Dr. Grady mentioned in her editor’s note point both to the importance of the team’s findings and the need for better understanding of factors that may affect the choice of which OUD medication to use.

A commentary by Max Jordan Nguemeni Tiako, MD, MS, with the Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues, said that while the Suarez et al. data are important to share with patients, “the ultimate treatment decision must be the result of shared decision-making between a knowledgeable clinician and the patient, rather than promoting one medication over another.”

They urge putting the findings in context given the study population, which comprises a relatively stable group of women with OUD, most of whom were taking OUD medications before they got pregnant. The study sample excludes a substantial number of women who are chronically underinsured or uninsured, Dr. Tiako’s team wrote, because those included were enrolled in Medicaid for 3 consecutive months before pregnancy.

“We urge caution when extrapolating these findings to newly pregnant individuals with untreated OUD,” they wrote.
 

Both Medications are Safe

Cara Poland, MD, MEd, with the Henry Ford Health + Michigan State University Health Sciences in Grand Rapids, and coauthors, added in another commentary that Suarez et al. didn’t include a comparison between the population-level congenital defect rate and the defect rate for people using medications for OUD in pregnancy.

That comparison, they wrote, would have better illustrated the safety of medications for OUD “instead of simply comparing two medications with long-standing safety data.”

When a clinician starts a woman on medication for OUD in pregnancy, it’s important to understand several factors, including individual access to and comfort with different treatment approaches, they noted. It’s also important to weigh whether changing medications is worth the potential drawbacks of disrupting their well-managed care.

They wrote that the paper by Suarez et al. does not make the case for switching medications based on their findings.

Internists, they added, are ideal experts to explain risk of fetal abnormalities in the wider context of supporting engagement with continuous medication for OUD.

“In the absence of other concerns, switching medications (methadone to buprenorphine) or — worse — discontinuing [medication for] OUD because of this study runs counter to the substantial evidence regarding the safety of these medications during pregnancy,” Dr. Poland’s team wrote. “No treatment is without risk in pregnancy.”

This study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In the Suarez et al. study, coauthors Dr. Hernández-Díaz, Dr. Gray, Dr. Connery, Dr. Zhu, and Dr. Huybrechts reported grants, personal fees and consulting payments from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Grady reports no relevant financial relationships in her editor’s note. No relevant financial relationships were reported by authors of the Tiako et al. commentary.

Regarding the commentary by Poland et al., grants were reported from the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Annette Gillaspie, a nurse in a small Oregon hospital, hoped she would be back working with patients by now. She contracted COVID-19 on the job early in the pandemic and ended up with long COVID.

After recovering a bit, her fatigue and dizziness returned, and today she is still working a desk job. She has also experienced more severe menstrual periods than before she had COVID.

“Being a female with long COVID definitely does add to the roller-coaster effect of symptoms,” Ms. Gillaspie said.

Long COVID affects nearly twice as many women as men, with 6.6% of women reporting long COVID compared with 4% of men, according to a recent Census Bureau survey reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Researchers are trying to determine why, what causes the gender disparity, and how best to treat it.

Scientists are also starting to look at the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health, including menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause.

Sex differences are common in infection-associated illnesses, said Beth Pollack, MS, a research scientist specializing in long COVID in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Biological Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It informs research priorities and the lens with which we understand long COVID.”

For example, reproductive health issues for women, such as puberty, pregnancy, and menopause, can alter the course of illness in a subset of women in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a condition that can cause dizziness and worse.

“This suggests that sex hormones may play key roles in immune responses to infections,” Ms. Pollack said.

ME/CFS and a Possible Link to Long COVID in Women

Some of the research into long COVID is being led by teams studying infection-associated chronic illnesses like ME/CFS.

The problem: Advocates say ME/CFS has been under-researched. Poorly understood for years, the condition is one of a handful of chronic illnesses linked to infections, including Lyme disease and now long COVID. Perhaps not coincidently, they are more likely to affect women.

Many of the research findings about long COVID mirror data that emerged in past ME/CFS research, said Jaime Seltzer, the scientific director at #MEAction, Santa Monica, California, an advocacy group. One point in particular: ME/CFS strikes women about twice as much as men, according to the CDC.

Ms. Seltzer said the response to long COVID could be much further ahead if the research community acknowledged the work done over the years on ME/CFS. Many of the potential biomarkers and risk factors emerging for long COVID were also suspected in ME/CFS, but not thoroughly studied, she said.

She also said not enough work has been done to unravel the links between gender and these chronic conditions.

“We’re stuck in this Groundhog Day situation,” she said. “There isn’t any research, so we can’t say anything definitively.”

Some New Research, Some New Clues

Scientists like Ms. Pollack are slowly making inroads. She was lead author on a 2023 review investigating the impact of long COVID on female reproductive health. The paper highlights long COVID links to ME/CFS, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), as well as a resulting laundry list of female reproductive health issues. The hope is physicians will examine how the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and menopause affect symptoms and illness progression of long COVID.

The Tal Research group at MIT (where Ms. Pollack works) has also added long COVID to the list of infection-associated illnesses it studies. The lab is conducting a large study looking into both Lyme disease and long COVID. The goals are to identify biomarkers that can predict who will not recover and to advance available treatments.

Another MIT program, “SEXX + Immunity” holds seminars and networking sessions for scientists looking into the role of female and male biology in immune responses to infection.

Barriers to Progress Remain

On the clinical side, female patients with long COVID also have to deal with a historical bias that still lurks in medicine when it comes to women’s health, said Alba Azola, MD, an assistant professor of physical medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr. Azola said she has discovered clinical descriptions of ME/CFE in the literature archives that describe it as “neurasthenia” and dismiss it as psychological.

Patients say that it is still happening, and while it may not be so blunt, “you can read between the lines,” Dr. Azola said.

Dr. Azola, who has worked with long COVID patients and is now seeing people with ME/CFS, said the symptoms of infection-associated chronic illness can mimic menopause, and many of her patients received that misdiagnosis. She recommends that doctors rule out long COVID for women with multiple symptoms before attributing symptoms to menopause.

Seeing that some long COVID patients were developing ME/CFS, staff at the Bateman Horne Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, set up a program for the condition in 2021. They were already treating patients with ME/CFS and what they call “multi-symptom chronic complex diseases.”

Jennifer Bell, a certified nurse practitioner at the center, said she has not seen any patients with ovarian failure but plenty with reproductive health issues.

“There definitely is a hormonal connection, but I don’t think there’s a good understanding about what is happening,” she said.

Most of her patients are female, and the more serious patients tend to go through a worsening of their symptoms in the week prior to getting a period, she said.

One thing Ms. Bell said she’s noticed in the past year is an increase in patients with EDS, which is also more common in women.

Like long COVID, many of the conditions traditionally treated at the center have no cure. But Ms. Bell said the center has developed an expertise in treating post-exertional malaise, a common symptom of long COVID, and keeps up with the literature for treatments to try, like the combination of guanfacine and the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine to treat brain fog, an approach developed at Yale.

“It’s a very challenging illness to treat,” Ms. Bell said.

Since the emergence of long COVID, researchers have warned that symptoms vary so much from person to person that treatment will need to be targeted.

Ms. Pollack of MIT agrees and sees a big role for personalized medicine.

We need to “identify phenotypes within and across these overlapping and co-occurring illnesses so that we can identify the right therapeutics for each person,” she said.

As for Annette Gillaspie, she still hopes her long COVID will subside so she can get out from behind the desk and return to her normal nursing duties.

“I just got to a point where I realized I’m likely never going to be able to do my job,” she said. “It was incredibly heart breaking, but it’s the reality of long COVID, and I know I’m not the only one to have to step away from a job I loved.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men who have smoked or currently smoke are significantly more likely to develop androgenetic alopecia (AGA) than men who have never smoked, according to a new study.

In addition, the odds of developing AGA are higher among those who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day than among those who smoke less, the study authors found.

“Men who smoke are more likely to develop and experience progression of male pattern hair loss,” lead author Aditya Gupta, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and director of clinical research at Mediprobe Research Inc., London, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“Our patients with male pattern baldness need to be educated about the negative effects of smoking, given that this condition can have a profound negative psychological impact on those who suffer from it,” he said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
 

Analyzing Smoking’s Effects

Smoking generally has been accepted as a risk factor for the development and progression of AGA or the most common form of hair loss. The research evidence on this association has been inconsistent, however, the authors wrote.

The investigators conducted a review and meta-analysis of eight observational studies to understand the links between smoking and AGA. Ever-smokers were defined as current and former smokers.

Overall, based on six studies, men who have ever smoked are 1.8 times more likely (P < .05) to develop AGA.

Based on two studies, men who smoke 10 or more cigarettes daily are about twice as likely (P < .05) to develop AGA than those who smoke up to 10 cigarettes per day.

Based on four studies, ever smoking is associated with 1.3 times higher odds of AGA progressing from mild (ie, Norwood-Hamilton stages I-III) to more severe (stages IV-VII) than among those who have never smoked.

Based on two studies, there’s no association between AGA progression and smoking intensity (as defined as smoking up to 20 cigarettes daily vs smoking 20 or more cigarettes per day).

“Though our pooled analysis found no significant association between smoking intensity and severity of male AGA, a positive correlation may exist and be detected through an analysis that is statistically better powered,” said Dr. Gupta.

The investigators noted the limitations of their analysis, such as its reliance on observational studies and its lack of data about nicotine levels, smoking intensity, and smoking cessation among study participants.

Additional studies are needed to better understand the links between smoking and hair loss, said Dr. Gupta, as well as the effects of smoking cessation.

Improving Practice and Research

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Arash Babadjouni, MD, a dermatologist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona, said, “Smoking is not only a preventable cause of significant systemic disease but also affects the follicular growth cycle and fiber pigmentation. The prevalence of hair loss and premature hair graying is higher in smokers than nonsmokers.”

Dr. Babadjouni, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the associations between smoking and hair loss and premature hair graying.

“Evidence of this association can be used to clinically promote smoking cessation and emphasize the consequences of smoking on hair,” he said. “Smoking status should be assessed in patients who are presenting to their dermatologist and physicians alike for evaluation of alopecia and premature hair graying.”

The study was conducted without outside funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Babadjouni reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You have psoriasis,” I say all the time. I mean it when I say it, of course. But I don’t always to the same degree. Sometimes I’m trying to say, “You probably have psoriasis.” Other times I mean, “You most definitely have psoriasis.” I rarely use those terms though.

One 36-year-old man with a flaky scalp and scaly elbows wasn’t satisfied with my assessment. His dad has psoriasis. So does his older brother. He was in to see me to find out if he had psoriasis too. “Probably” was what I gave him. He pushed back, “What percent chance?” That’s a good question — must be an engineer. I’m unsure.

Kaiser Permanente

With the exception of the poker players, our species is notoriously bad at probabilities. We’re wired to notice the significance of events, but terrible at understanding their likelihood. This is salient in lottery ticket holders and some NFL offensive coordinators who persist despite very long odds of things working out. It’s also reflected in the language we use. Rarely do we say, there’s a sixty percent chance something will happen. Rather, we say, “it’s likely.” There are two problems here. One, we often misjudge the actual probability of something occurring and two, the terms we use are subjective and differences in interpretation can lead to misunderstandings.

Let’s take a look. A 55-year-old man with a chronic eczematous rash on his trunk and extremities is getting worse despite dupilumab. He recently had night sweats. Do you think he has atopic dermatitis or cutaneous T-cell lymphoma? If you had to place a $100 bet, would you change your answer? Immanuel Kant thinks you would. In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” the German philosopher proposes that betting helps clarify the mind, an antidote to brashness. The example Kant uses is of a physician who observes a patient and concludes he has phthisis (tuberculosis), but we really don’t know if the physician is confident. Kant proposes that if he had to bet on his conclusion, then we’d have insight into just how convinced he is of phthisis. So, what’s your bet?

If you’re a bad poker player, then you might bet he has cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. However, not having any additional information, the smart call is atopic dermatitis, which has a base rate 1000-fold higher than CTCL. It is therefore more probable to be eczema even in a case that worsens despite dupilumab or with recent night sweats, both of which could be a result of common variables such as weather and COVID. Failure to account for the base rate is a mistake we physicians sometimes make. Economists rarely do. Try to think like one before answering a likelihood question.

For my scaly patient, we know psoriasis is common and so it’s likely he has it. The trouble is what “probably” means to me might mean something different to him. If you think about it, “probably” means something different even to me, depending on the situation. I might say I’ll probably go to Montana this summer and I’ll probably retire at 65. The actual likelihoods might be 95% and 70%. That’s a big difference. What about between probably and likely? Or possibly and maybe? Do they mean the same to you as to the person you’re speaking with? For much of the work we do, precise likelihoods aren’t critical. Yet, it can be important in decision making and in discussing probabilities, such as the risk of hepatitis on terbinafine or of melanoma recurrence after Mohs.

I told my patient “I say about a 70% chance you have psoriasis. I could do a biopsy today to confirm.” He thought for a second and asked, “What is the chance it’s psoriasis if the biopsy shows it?” “Eighty six percent,” I replied.

Seemed like a good bet to me.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources:

• 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10) for total protein
• 1.07 (1.02-1.11) for animal protein
• 1.14 (1.06-1.23) for dairy protein
• 1.38 (1.24-1.54) for plant protein 

In substitution analyses, significant positive associations were observed for the isocaloric replacement of animal or dairy protein, carbohydrate, or fat with plant protein — with increased ORs for healthy aging of 1.22-1.58 for each 3% of energy replacement.

On the measure of physical function, for example, replacing calories from all macronutrient variables with equivalent calories from plant protein was associated with 20%-60% higher odds of having no physical function limitations. Plant protein was also associated with higher odds for good mental status.

“Other studies have looked at protein intake in older adults, but we felt midlife was a more relevant etiological window,” Dr. Ardisson Korat said in an interview. “Our findings generally align, however, with those of protein intake in older populations, which have shown that protein can reduce the risk of frailty.”

He added that the benefits of protein, especially from plant sources, would likely apply to men as well and increasing plant protein intake is not difficult. “If you want a snack during the day, eat a handful of nuts instead of potato chips,” he advised. And eating several meals a week featuring beans, peas, lentils, tofu, whole grains, or seeds is an easy way to boost dietary plant protein, which comes with health-promoting soluble and insoluble fiber as well as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory polyphenols and other phytochemicals.

Conversely, plant but not animal protein consumption in older adulthood was linked to a lower risk of frailty in a previous NHS trial.

Higher plant protein intake was associated with a better probability of achieving healthy aging defined by changes in functional impairments, self-reported health/vitality, mental health, and use of health services in the Spanish Seniors-Estudio Sobre Nutricion y Riesgo Cardiovascular.

In contrast, animal protein intake in middle adulthood has been linked to an increased risk of premature death from chronic diseases driven by cardiovascular disease mortality.

The present findings are consistent with those observed for protein intakes in older adulthood, Dr. Ardisson Korat said.

“This study underscores the health advantages for midlife adults consuming adequate dietary protein — particularly plant protein — as one component of pursuing a healthy lifestyle,” said Douglas R. Dirschl, MD, chair of orthopedic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Most Americans consume adequate amounts of protein, but according to Dr. Dirschl, who treats many older patients for osteoporotic fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions, many US diets are subpar in this nutrient.

While protein is essential for bone and muscle formation and maintenance, “a surprising number of Americans are protein deficient, even those who seem hale and are overweight,” he said.


 

Dietary Recommendations for Midlife Patients

Physicians should therefore advise midlife patients to meet or perhaps modestly exceed the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein of 0.8 g/kg per day and to make plant protein a substantial component of daily dietary protein intake, Dr. Dirschl said.

Luke D. Kim, MD, MEd, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, noted that patients with lower socioeconomic status or with difficulty in day-to-day functioning are likely to have suboptimal protein intake. Such patients may need encouragement to eat more protein. “But we should keep in mind that showing a higher associated odds ratio of better health with increased protein take does not mean causality,” he said.

According to Rachel L. Amdur, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, the long-term follow-up data from the NHS are uniquely helpful. “Middle-aged persons may think they no longer need much dietary protein and need to be reminded. Sometimes eating carbohydrates is just easier,” she said in an interview. Physicians need to asses and counsel patients on nutrition at all stages of life. “As I tell my patients, it’s best to think of your future self now.”

In agreement is Louis J. Morledge, MD, an internist at Northwell Health in New York City. “I firmly counsel my patients about adequate and often increased protein intake in middle life. But this is always within a larger framework of overall nutritional health.” He added that middle-aged persons often find themselves “stuck in food ruts,” and one of his clinical focuses is to advise patients about the importance of healthier food choices so they can better adjust to mental, emotional, physical, and skeletal changes as they age.
 

Study Details

The NHS analysis drew on prospective data from 48,762 nurses under age 60 in 1984. Total protein, animal protein, dairy protein, and plant protein were derived from validated food-frequency questionnaires.

Adjusting for lifestyle, demographics, and health status, the investigators identified 3721 (7.6% of cohort) eligible participants. The mean age of participants at baseline was 48.6 years; 38.6% had body mass indexes (BMI; in kg/m²) greater than 25; 22.9% were current smokers; and 88.2% were married.

Healthy aging was defined as freedom from 11 major chronic diseases, good mental health, and no impairments in cognitive or physical function, as assessed in the 2014 or 2016 NHS participant questionnaires. Diseases/treatments included cancer, type 2 diabetes, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Mean total protein consumption as a percentage of energy was 18.3% (standard deviation 3%), slightly higher than the average 16% in the US diet. Of this, 13.3% derived from animals, 3.6% from dairy products, and 4.9% from plants.

Total protein intake was positively associated with higher education levels, being physically active, higher BMI, and a baseline history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Conversely, total protein intake was inversely associated with intakes of total carbohydrates, nuts, alcohol, and sugar-sweetened beverages.

The associations between protein intake and healthy aging are complex and not fully understood, the authors stated.
 

Effects of Protein Intake

In studies of older adult populations lower protein intake has been associated with lean mass loss. Animal protein supplementation studies in older adults have shown lean mass gains potentially related to amino acid composition.

In terms of mechanisms, evidence suggests that protein-related activation of the rapamycin complex 1 pathway may play a role, the authors suggested. The activity of this signaling pathway decreases with age.

Rapamycin, a compound used to prevent organ transplant rejection, has been associated with delayed aging. In the body, dietary protein and exercise activate this pathway, thereby stimulating muscle protein synthesis and possibly improving physical function.

As for the differential associations of plant and animal protein on the chronic disease domain of the healthy aging phenotype, Dr. Ardisson Korat and coauthors said plant protein has been associated with favorable levels of important risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases, such as reduced LDL cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity, as well as decreased levels of proinflammatory markers.

Conversely, total and animal protein intakes have been positively associated with concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1, which is implicated in the growth of malignant cells in breast and prostate tissue.

This study is the first step in evaluating the long-term health effect of protein intake in midlife, the relevant development window for most chronic conditions, the NHS study authors said. More research is needed, however, to corroborate the study findings in other populations and identify underlying mechanisms.

This study was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service and the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The commentators disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Intake of protein, especially from plants, in middle age is associated with higher odds of healthy aging and positive mental and physical health status in older women, a recent analysis of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) data suggests.

The study is said to be the first to examine the long-term impact of midlife protein consumption on later health status.

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a team led by Andres V. Ardisson Korat, DSc, a nutritional epidemiologist at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, found the following midlife protein–related odds ratios (ORs) for later healthy aging measured at ages 70-93.

For each 3% energy increment from various protein sources: