News

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

Long COVID is a symptom-driven disease, meaning that with no cure, physicians primarily treat the symptoms their patients are experiencing. Effective treatments for long COVID remain elusive because what works for one patient may be entirely ineffective for another. But as 2024 winds down, researchers have begun to pinpoint a number of treatments that are bringing relief to the 17 million Americans diagnosed with long COVID.

Here’s a current look at what research has identified as some of the most promising treatments.

 

Low-Dose Naltrexone

Some research suggests that low-dose naltrexone may be helpful for patients suffering from brain fog, pain, sleep issues, and fatigue, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System in Missouri.

Low-dose naltrexone is an anti-inflammatory agent currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of alcohol and opioid dependence.

“We don’t know the mechanism for how the medication works, and for that matter, we don’t really understand what causes brain fog. But perhaps its anti-inflammatory properties seem to help, and for some patients, low-dose naltrexone has been helpful,” said Al-Aly.

A March 2024 study found that both fatigue and pain were improved in patients taking low-dose naltrexone. In another study, published in the June 2024 issue of Frontiers in Medicine, researchers found that low-dose naltrexone was associated with improvement of several clinical symptoms related to long COVID such as fatigue, poor sleep quality, brain fog, post-exertional malaise, and headache.

 

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Antidepressants

In 2023, University of Pennsylvania researchers uncovered a link between long COVID and lower levels of serotonin in the body. This helped point to the potential treatment of using SSRIs to treat the condition.

For patients who have overlapping psychiatric issues that go along with brain fog, SSRIs prescribed to treat depression and other mental health conditions, as well as the antidepressant Wellbutrin, have been shown effective at dealing with concentration issues, brain fog, and depression, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.

A study published in the November 2023 issue of the journal Scientific Reports found that SSRIs led to a “considerable reduction of symptoms,” especially brain fog, fatigue, sensory overload, and overall improved functioning. Low-dose Abilify, which contains aripiprazole, an antipsychotic medication, has also been found to be effective for cognitive issues caused by long COVID.

“Abilify is traditionally used for the treatment of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, but in a low-dose format, there is some data to suggest that it can also be anti-inflammatory and helpful for cognitive issues like brain fog,” said Viswanathan.

 

Modafinil

Modafinil, a medication previously used for managing narcolepsy, has also been shown effective for the treatment of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits caused by long COVID, said Viswanathan, adding that it’s another medication that she’s found useful for a number of her patients.

It’s thought that these cognitive symptoms are caused by an inflammatory cytokine release that leads to excessive stimulation of neurotransmitters in the body. According to a June 2024 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Modafinil can therapeutically act on these pathways, which possibly contributed to the symptomatic improvement.” But the medication has not been studied widely in patients with long COVID and has been shown to have interactions with other medications.

 

Metformin

Some research has shown that metformin, a well-known diabetes medication, reduces instances of long COVID when taken during the illness’s acute phase. It seems to boost metabolic function in patients.

“It makes sense that it would work because it seems to have anti-inflammatory effects on the body,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads one of the 15 nationwide long COVID centers funded by the federal RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) Initiative in Cleveland, Ohio. McComsey added that it may reduce the viral persistence that causes some forms of long COVID.

A study published in the October 2023 issue of the journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that metformin seemed to reduce instances of long COVID in patients who took it after being diagnosed with acute COVID. It seems less effective in patients who already have long COVID.

 

Antihistamines

Other data suggest that some patients with long COVID showed improvement after taking antihistamines. Research has shown that long COVID symptoms improved in 29% of patients with long COVID.

While researchers aren’t sure why antihistamines work to quell long COVID, the thought is that, when mast cells, a white blood cell that’s part of the immune system, shed granules and cause an inflammatory reaction, they release a lot of histamines. Antihistamine medications like famotidine block histamine receptors in the body, improving symptoms like brain fog, difficulty breathing, and elevated heart rate in patients.

“For some patients, these can be a lifesaver,” said David Putrino, the Nash Family Director of the Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Illness and a national leader in the treatment of long COVID.

Putrino cautions patients toward taking these and other medications haphazardly without fully understanding that all treatments have risks, especially if they’re taking a number of them.

“Often patients are told that there’s no risk to trying something, but physicians should be counseling their patients and reminding them that there is a risk that includes medication sensitivities and medication interactions,” said Putrino.

The good news is that doctors have begun to identify some treatments that seem to be working in their patients, but we still don’t have the large-scale clinical trials to identify which treatments will work for certain patients and why.

There’s still so much we don’t know, and for physicians on the front lines of treating long COVID, it’s still largely a guessing game. “This is a constellation of symptoms; it’s not just one thing,” said Al-Aly. And while a treatment might be wildly effective for one patient, it might be ineffective or worse, problematic, for another.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

When a patient signs on to a telehealth portal, there’s little more a provider can do than ask questions. But a new artificial intelligence (AI) technology could allow providers to get feedback about the patient’s blood pressure and diabetes risk just from a video call or a smartphone app.

Researchers at the University of Tokyo in Japan are using AI to determine whether people might have high blood pressure or diabetes based on video data collected with a special sensor. 

The technology relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures changes in blood volume by detecting the amount of light absorbed by blood just below the skin. 

This technology is already used for things like finger pulse oximetry to determine oxygen saturation and heart rate. Wearable devices like Apple Watches and Fitbits also use PPG technologies to detect heart rate and atrial fibrillation.

“If we could detect and accurately measure your blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation non-invasively that would be fantastic,” said Eugene Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle who was not involved in the study.

 

How Does PPG Work — and Is This New Tech Accurate?

Using PPG, “you’re detecting these small, little blood vessels that sit underneath the surface of your skin,” explained Yang.

“Since both hypertension and diabetes are diseases that damage blood vessels, we thought these diseases might affect blood flow and pulse wave transit times,” said Ryoko Uchida, a project researcher in the cardiology department at the University of Tokyo and one of the leaders of the study.

PPG devices primarily use green light to detect blood flow, as hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying molecule in blood, absorbs green light most effectively, Yang said. “So, if you extract and remove all the other channels of light and only focus on the green channel, then that’s when you’ll be able to potentially see blood flow and pulsatile blood flow activity,” he noted.

The University of Tokyo researchers used remote or contactless PPG, which requires a short video recording of someone’s face and palms, as the person holds as still as possible. A special sensor collects the video and detects only certain wavelengths of light. Then the researchers developed an AI algorithm to extract data from participants’ skin, such as changes in pulse transit time — the time it takes for the pulse to travel from the palm to the face.

To correlate the video algorithm to blood pressure and diabetes risk, the researchers measured blood participants’ pressure with a continuous sphygmomanometer (an automatic blood pressure cuff) at the same time as they collected the video. They also did a blood A1c test to detect diabetes.

So far, they’ve tested their video algorithm on 215 people. The algorithm applied to a 30-second video was 86% accurate in detecting if blood pressure was above normal, and a 5-second video was 81% accurate in detecting higher blood pressure.

Compared with using hemoglobin A1c blood test results to screen for diabetes, the video algorithm was 75% accurate in identifying people who had subtle blood changes that correlated to diabetes.

“Most of this focus has been on wearable devices, patches, rings, wrist devices,” Yang said, “the facial video stuff is great because you can imagine that there are other ways of applying it.”

Yang, who is also doing research on facial video processing, pointed out it could be helpful not only in telehealth visits, but also for patients in the hospital with highly contagious diseases who need to be in isolation, or just for people using their smartphones. 

“People are tied to their smartphones, so you could imagine that that would be great as a way for people to have awareness about their blood pressure or their diabetes status,” Yang noted.

 

More Work to Do

The study has a few caveats. The special sensor they used in this study isn’t yet integrated into smartphone cameras or other common video recording devices. But Uchida is hopeful that it could be mass-produced and inexpensive to someday add.

Also, the study was done in a Japanese population, and lighter skin may be easier to capture changes in blood flow, Uchida noted. Pulse oximeters, which use the same technology, tend to overestimate blood oxygen in people with darker skin tones.

“It is necessary to test whether the same results are obtained in a variety of subjects other than Japanese and Asians,” Uchida said, in addition to validating the tool with more participants.

The study has also not yet undergone peer review.

And Yang pointed out that this new AI technology provides more of a screening tool to predict who is at high risk for high blood pressure or diabetes, rather than precise measurements for either disease.

There are already some devices that claim to measure blood pressure using PPG technology, like blood pressure monitoring watches. But Yang warns that these kinds of devices aren’t validated, meaning we don’t really know how well they work.

One difficulty in getting any kind of PPG blood pressure monitoring device to market is that the organizations involved in setting medical device standards (like the International Organization for Standards) doesn’t yet have a validation standard for this technology, Yang said, so there’s really no way to consistently verify the technology’s accuracy.

“I am optimistic that we are capable of figuring out how to validate these things. I just think we have so many things we have to iron out before that happens,” Yang explained, noting that it will be at least 3 years before a remote blood monitoring system is widely available.

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

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For some medical students and trainees who go on to become hematologists, attraction to the field happens the first time they’re engrossed in figuring out what a blood smear is telling them. Others get drawn to hematology during a rotation in residency, when they encounter patients with hemophilia or sickle cell disease.

But when it comes to turning people on to the idea of a career in classical hematology (CH), there may be no more powerful influence than a mentor who loves their job. That’s why the field is focusing so much on supporting mentors and mentees amid a stark shortage of classical hematologists.

“Mentorship is key for maintaining trainee interest in the field and for providing role models for career growth,” said Rakhi P. Naik, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine and director of the Hematology Fellowship Track at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, in an interview. “This collaboration is especially critical because there are so few trainees and so few mentors currently in the field.”

Now there’s new research backing up the power of mentorship, even when it’s only provided virtually, and a brand-new program aims to unite more mentors and mentees.

Here’s a closer look at mentor-focused efforts to attract medical students to CH.

 

How Severe Is the Shortage in CH?

Patients with conditions treated by classical hematologists are waiting months for appointments at many outpatient centers, with some being forced to wait 6 months or more, said Srikanth Nagalla, MD, chief of benign hematology at Miami Cancer Institute, Florida, in an interview.

The shortage is creating dire problems in the inpatient setting too, Nagalla said. “Serious blood disorders like heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, acute chest syndrome [a complication of sickle cell disease], and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura have to be diagnosed and treated in a timely manner. If not, the morbidity and mortality are really high.”

If classical hematologists aren’t available, he said, oncologists and others not trained in hematology will need to cover these patients. 

Hematologist Ariela Marshall, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, noted in an interview that the CH shortage comes at a time when medical advances and an aging population are boosting the number of patients with noncancerous blood disorders. Older people are at greater risk for blood clots, she said. And lifespans for patients with bleeding and clotting disorders are rising thanks to effective new treatments.

“Because of our larger patient population in CH, we are going to need more classical hematologists to follow them for longer and longer periods of time,” she said. 

There’s no sign yet that newly minted physicians will take up the slack in CH. A 2019 study found that just 4.6% of 626 of hematology/oncology fellows said they planned to go into CH, also known as benign hematology, vs 67.1% who expected to treat patients with solid tumors, blood cancer, or both. The rest, 24.6%, planned to work in CH plus the two oncology fields.

 

Why Does a Shortage Exist?

“The reasons are complex, but one of the most important factors was the combining of the adult hematology and medical oncology training programs by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 1995,” Naik said. “After that time, the majority of fellowship training programs went from having separate programs for hematology and medical oncology to combining the training for the two specialties into one. Because most of these combined training programs resided within Cancer Centers, classical hematology training slowly became de-emphasized.”

As a result, fewer fellows ended up specializing in CH, she said. 

The field of CH also appears to suffer from a less than enticing reputation. According to a 2019 study coauthored by Marshall, surveys of thousands of hematology/oncology fellows found that “hematology, particularly benign hematology, was viewed as having poorer income potential, research funding, job availability, and job security than oncology.”

Regarding pay, Marshall said the good news is that many classical hematologists work in academia, where it’s common for pay to be “equitable across hematology/oncology divisions and based more on academic rank and other factors rather than subspecialty within hematology oncology.”

However, she noted, “this may differ at institutions where hematology and oncology are different departments. For example, centers where oncology is its own department, and hematology is part of the department of medicine.” 

As for job availability, Naik said that there’s plenty of demand. “In academics, it is clear that there are jobs available everywhere, but trainees are often worried about job prospects in private practice. While classical hematology jobs in private practice are not widely advertised, I can attest that there is no shortage of need,” she said. “Many private practices do not specifically advertise for classical hematologists because they assume that classical hematology experts are not available. But I assure you that every private practice my trainees have ever approached is always ecstatic to hire a classical hematologist.”

 

Why Are Mentors Important?

Mentorship is crucial to promoting the value of CH as a great career choice in a competitive environment, classical hematologists say. “We can motivate trainees by showing how the disease states themselves are so fascinating and how the treatments are showing great outcomes,” Nagalla said. “We can show positive results, how patient lives can be changed, and how well-respected across the system [we] are.”

As a selling point, classical hematologists like to emphasize that their field requires intensive detective work. “Let’s say a patient comes with anemia, which might have 15 different causes. You get some labs, and then you systemically rule in or rule out most of these on the differential diagnosis,” Nagalla said. “Then once you narrow it down, you get more labs. You keep going to the next step and next step, and so finally you come to a conclusion.”

As for therapy, Marshall said that “while for many cancers there are specific treatment recommendations for patients with a specific cancer type at a specific stage, there is not always a specific treatment recommendation (or a ‘right answer’) for our CH patients. Treatment planning depends strongly on a patient’s preferences, other medical conditions, and a discussion about risks [and] benefits of different treatment options such that two patients with the same condition may choose two different treatment options.”

Marshall also emphasizes to trainees that “CH is a broad field. Physicians and trainees are able to interact and collaborate with physicians in other specialties such as gastroenterology, cardiology, ob/gyn, and surgical specialties.” 

 

Does Research Support Mentorship in CH?

The 2019 study that revealed just 4.6% of fellows planned to go into CH found that “fellows who planned to enter hematology-only careers were significantly more likely to report having clinical training and mentorship experiences in hematology throughout their training relative to fellows with oncology-only or combined hematology/oncology career plans.”

Now there are more data to support mentorships. For a study published in Blood Advances in September 2024, Zoya Qureshy, MD, an internal medicine chief resident at the University of California at San Diego, and colleagues evaluated a year-long external membership program implemented by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute. 

The program linked 35 US hematology/oncology fellows (80% female, 46% White, 35% Asian) who were interested in CH to 34 North American faculty members. The pairs were told to meet virtually once a month. 

Of 30 mentees and 23 mentors surveyed, 94% and 85%, respectively, said their pairings were good matches. Two thirds of the mentees accepted faculty positions in CH after their mentorships.

“Our study showed that external mentorship in a virtual format is feasible,” Qureshy said in an interview. “Additionally, external mentorship provided benefits such as different perspectives and the opportunity for mentorship for those who may not have it in their field of interest at their home institution.”

Qureshy added that “one strength of our mentorship program was that mentoring pairs were meticulously assigned based on shared interests and background. Many participants cited this common ground as a reason why they thought their mentoring pair was a good match.” 

There’s an important caveat: Most of the mentees weren’t new to CH. About 70% had previously worked with a mentor in the CH field, and 86% had previously conducted research in the field. 

 

What’s Next for Mentorship in CH?

The ASH Hematology-Focused Fellowship Training Program Consortium aims to mint 50 new academic hematologists by 2030 through programs at 12 institutions. “Mentorship is an exciting aspect of the program since it allows classical hematology trainees to form a network of peers nationally and also provides access to mentors across institutions,” Naik said. “And as the workforce grows, there will be more and more role models for future trainees to look up to.”

Moving forward, she said, “we hope to inspire even more institutions to adopt hematology training tracks throughout the country.”

Meanwhile, ASH’s new Classical Hematology Advancement Mentorship is taking applications for its debut 2025 program through January 9, 2025. Trainees will meet monthly with mentors both virtually and in person. Applicants must have been in their first or second year of hematology/oncology fellowship training at accredited programs in the United States as of July 15, 2024.

Naik, Marshall, Nagalla, and Qureshy have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) exceeded its 2024 goal to house 41,000 veterans, housing 47,935 veterans—an increase of 16.9% and the highest number housed in a single year since 2019. What’s more, it passed that housing goal a month early.

Ending veteran homelessness has been a priority for VA and the Biden-Harris administration. Since 2022, the VA has permanently housed nearly 134,000 homeless veterans. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the US has decreased by over 4% since 2020 and by more than 52% since 2010.

The marked decline in homelessness is largely due to the VA’s change in approach. Transitional housing often has followed a linear stepwise model, designed to foster housing readiness by encouraging sobriety and treatment compliance before moving the veteran to the next stage, from emergency shelter to transitional, and finally, permanent housing. While this method worked for some, it posed challenges for those with serious mental illness, substance addiction, or chronic medical conditions.

The VA began shifting its approach in 2012, adopting what it calls its north star—the evidence-based housing first approach. This strategy prioritizes getting veterans into housing as quickly as possible, skipping the intermediate transitional interventions, and then providing wraparound services such as job training and legal and education assistance. “Permanent housing is a critical tool, rather than a reward, for recovery,” says Shawn Liu, director of communications for the VA Homeless Programs Office, in a 2023 article.

A systematic review of studies from 1992 to 2017, shows that the housing first model leads to quicker exits from homelessness and greater long-term housing stability compared with traditional methods. The VA has also found that doing away with enrollment preconditions helps shorten stays among transitional housing providers, improves rates of permanent housing, and increases access to supportive services when needed.

Evidence suggests that the housing first model may reduce the use of emergency department services, hospitalizations, and hospitalized time compared with traditional treatment methods (although the meta-analysis found “considerable variability” between its examined studies). However, evidence that the Housing First model improves health outcomes associated with mental health, substance abuse, or physical health, remains inconclusive. 

In 2010, a demonstration project in the VA setting compared the housing first model with a treatment‐first program for 177 homeless veterans. The study found that the housing first model reduced time to housing placement from 223 to 35 days, significantly increased housing retention rates (98% vs 86%), and significantly reduced emergency room visits.

Over the past decade, the VA has focused on building on the strengths of the program and identifying areas for improvement, such as increasing the prevalence of recovery-oriented philosophies among service providers. “Nearly 48,000 formerly homeless veterans now have a safe, stable place to call home—and there’s nothing more important than that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough. “No veteran should experience homelessness in this nation they swore to defend. We are making real progress in this fight, and we will not rest until veteran homelessness is a thing of the past.”

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Novel first-generation cell-free DNA blood (cf-bDNA) tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) cost more and are less effective than colonoscopy or stool tests, a new analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the clinical and economic impacts of emerging blood- and stool-based CRC screening tests with established alternatives in average-risk adults aged 45 years and older.
• The established screening tools were colonoscopy, a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a multitarget stool DNA test (MT-sDNA, Exact Sciences Cologuard).
• The four emerging screening methods were two cf-bDNA tests (Guardant Shield and Freenome); an enhanced, a next-generation multitarget stool test (ngMT-sDNA), and a novel FIT-RNA test (Geneoscopy ColoSense).

TAKEAWAY:

• Assuming 100% participation in all screening steps, colonoscopy and FIT yielded reductions of more than 70% in CRC incidence and 75% in mortality vs no screening.
• The MT-sDNA test reduced CRC incidence by 68% and mortality by 73%, with similar rates for the ngMT-sDNA and FIT-RNA tests vs no screening. The cf-bDNA tests yielded CRC incidence and mortality reductions of only 42% and 56%.
• Colonoscopy and FIT were more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA and MT-sDNA tests, and the MT-sDNA test was more effective and less costly than the cf-bDNA test.
• Population benefits from blood tests were seen only in those who declined colonoscopy and stool tests. Substituting a blood test for those already using colonoscopy or stool tests led to worse population-level outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“First-generation novel cf-bDNA tests have the potential to decrease meaningfully the incidence and mortality of CRC compared with no screening but substantially less profoundly than screening colonoscopy or stool tests. Net population benefit or harm can follow incorporation of first-generation cf-bDNA CRC screening tests into practice, depending on the balance between bringing unscreened persons into screening (addition) vs shifting persons away from the more effective strategies of colonoscopy or stool testing (substitution),” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Uri Ladabaum, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included test-specific participation patterns being unknown over time. 

DISCLOSURES:

Disclosure forms for the authors are available with the article online. Funding was provided by the Gorrindo Family Fund.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.

Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.

Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 10⁹ cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).

What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?

Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?

Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.

Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.

Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.

Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.

What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.

We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.

Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.

We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.

Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.

Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.

Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.

Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.

I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.

These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.

I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.

I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.

There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.

Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.

Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — New research provides more evidence that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) do not increase the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Instead, the large electronic health record (EHR) analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) found those taking GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for pancreatic cancer than peers on other antidiabetic medications. 

“Although there were previous reports suggesting possible association between pancreatic cancer and GLP-1 receptor agonist medications, this study provides reassurance that there is no observed increased incidence of pancreatic cancer in patients prescribed these medications,” said Khaled Alsabbagh Alchirazi, MD, a gastroenterology fellow with Aurora Healthcare in Brookfield, Wisconsin. 

He presented the study findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 

 

Important Topic

Patients with T2D are at increased risk for several malignancies, including pancreatic cancer. Given the unique mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs in the pancreas, it was important to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs and incidence of pancreatic cancer, he explained.

Using the TriNetX database, the study team identified 4.95 million antidiabetic drug naive T2D patients who were prescribed antidiabetic medications for the first time between 2005 and 2020. None had a history of pancreatic cancer. 

A total of 245,532 were prescribed a GLP-1 RA. The researchers compared GLP-1 RAs users to users of other antidiabetic medications — namely, insulin, metformin, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. 

Patients were propensity score-matched based on demographics, health determinants, lifestyle factors, medical history, family history of cancers, and acute/chronic pancreatitis. 

The risk for pancreatic cancer was significantly lower among patients on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.55), DPP-4i (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89), SGLT2i (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and sulfonylureas (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), Alchirazi reported.

The results were consistent across different groups, including patients with obesity/ overweight on GLP-1 RAs vs insulin (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.65) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96).

Strengths of the analysis included the large and diverse cohort of propensity score-matched patients. Limitations included the retrospective design and use of claims data that did not provide granular data on pathology reports.

The study by Alchirazi and colleagues aligns with a large population-based cohort study from Israel that found no evidence that GLP-1 RAs increase risk for pancreatic cancer over 7 years following initiation.

Separately, a study of more than 1.6 million patients with T2D found that treatment with a GLP-1 RA (vs insulin or metformin) was associated with lower risks for specific types of obesity-related cancers, including pancreatic cancer.

The study had no specific funding. Alchirazi had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.