User login
-
Health care in America: Let that tapeworm grow
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.
I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”
Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.
Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).
To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.
Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.
Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.
Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.
Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.
So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
A jobs program
Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.
Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.
If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
The MBAization of medicine
Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.
Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).
My goodness! Well done.
Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.
I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
Take it all over?
Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.
Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.
Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.
Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.
And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.
George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Previously unknown viral families hide in the darnedest places
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
You and me and baby makes 10,003
If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?
How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.
“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)
The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.
About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.
Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!
[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]
Fooled them. Stop the babies!
At least someone out there appreciates hospital food
Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”
One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.
Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.
Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.
“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.
“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.
Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
That click sounded stressed
How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.
Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?
We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.
The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.
Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.
Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.
Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.
So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.
Price of CLL Rx rises, despite competition
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In fact, the opposite has been seen: Both the price and prescribing of ibrutinib have increased markedly from 2014 to 2020, the authors of a new study say. The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib increased by 46% during that period, despite the entry of several less costly and comparable products into the marketplace.
“Further research is needed to understand why oncologists have not embraced clinically superior options for CLL being sold at prices similar to, if not lower than, ibrutinib,” write the authors, led by Edward Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The study was published online (2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.7467) as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
Ibrutinib is currently indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and chronic graft versus host disease. Among the top-selling drugs in the United States, ibrutinib sales by 2020 accounted for more than $2.8 billion in annual net Medicare spending.
However, since ibrutinib’s launch in 2013, there have been several new drugs approved for use in CLL, the authors note. They include acalabrutinib (Calquence), also a BTK inhibitor but associated with fewer adverse events, and venetoclax (Venclexta), the first-in-class B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor that offers additional clinical advantages such as time-limited therapy and the potential for complete remission. In addition, phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase inhibitors (PI3K inhibitors) were also approved for CLL, but they are less effective and associated with higher toxicity and are usually reserved for patients who relapse multiple times.
Prescribing and cost increased
With the emergence of several new oral targeted drugs for CLL, the authors hypothesized that this might lower costs as a result of competition and affect overall spending on ibrutinib.
To test their theory, they analyzed trends in Medicare Part D use and spending on these drugs from 2014 to 2020 to determine annual spending on oral CLL drugs, the number of beneficiaries who received these drugs, and the average spending per 30-day fill.
A total of six oral medications were included in their analysis: three BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib), two PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib and duvelisib), and one B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor (venetoclax).
During the study period, annual net Medicare spending for all six of these drugs and across all indications increased from $254 million to $3.7 billion.
At the start of the study period in 2014, 6,180 Medicare beneficiaries were being treated with ibrutinib, and this number dramatically increased to 26,847 beneficiaries in 2020. Spending on ibrutinib constituted more than three-quarters (77%) of the total Medicare costs for these six drugs in 2020.
The estimated net spending for a 30-day supply of ibrutinib rose by 46%, from $8,206 in 2014 to $11,980 in 2020, despite the entry of the competitor drugs into the marketplace, some of which also had lower price tags: venetoclax in 2016 (2020 30-day fill price, $7,787), acalabrutinib in 2017 ($11,428) and zanubrutinib in 2020 ($12,521).
In addition, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar trend outside of the Medicare system.
Unlike for ibrutinib, net spending for other oral targeted drugs generally did not increase over time, and some drug prices even dropped slightly.
The authors note that one limitation of their study is that Medicare does not report spending by indication, so it was unknown what proportion of the cost was for CLL as opposed to the other B-cell lymphomas.
“Brand-to-brand competition may have been ineffective at lowering Medicare costs due to lags between approval and change in prescriber practices, constraints on payers’ ability to effectively use formularies to negotiate prices, and financial incentives that can encourage intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers to accept high prices,” they conclude.
This study was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Several of the authors have reported relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
A 50-year-old White male presented with a 4- to 5-year history of progressively growing violaceous lesions on his left lower extremity
with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.1-5
Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.
Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).1,3-5
This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.
While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6
PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.1,2
Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.
2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.
3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.
4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.
5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.
6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.
with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.1-5
Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.
Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).1,3-5
This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.
While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6
PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.1,2
Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.
2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.
3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.
4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.
5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.
6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.
with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.1-5
Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.
Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).1,3-5
This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.
While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6
PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.1,2
Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.
Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.
2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.
3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.
4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.
5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.
6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.
There was no cervical, axillary, or inguinal lymphadenopathy.
AFib risk with cancer drugs underestimated
Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.
As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.
The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.
The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.
Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.
The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.
“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
Call for routine monitoring
The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.
To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.
Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.
“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.
The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”
Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
Details of the meta-analysis
The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.
The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.
The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.
The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).
For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.
The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.
One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.
No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.
As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.
The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.
The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.
Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.
The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.
“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
Call for routine monitoring
The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.
To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.
Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.
“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.
The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”
Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
Details of the meta-analysis
The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.
The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.
The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.
The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).
For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.
The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.
One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.
No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.
As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.
The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.
The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.
Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.
The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.
“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
Call for routine monitoring
The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.
To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.
Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.
“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.
The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”
Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
Details of the meta-analysis
The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.
The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.
The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.
The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).
For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.
The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.
One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.
No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Medicare rule streamlines prior authorization in Medicare Advantage plans
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.
The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans
Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.
About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.
The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.
- Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
- Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
- Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.
Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”
The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
Peer consideration
The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”
“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’
With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.
The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.
Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.
“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lack of food for thought: Starve a bacterium, feed an infection
A whole new, tiny level of hangry
Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.
New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.
Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.
To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.
So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.
So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.
Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
The very hangry iguana?
Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.
Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.
Wait, hold on, what?
As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).
While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.
But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.
M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.
So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
No allergies? Let them give up cake
Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.
Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.
More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).
The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.
A whole new, tiny level of hangry
Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.
New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.
Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.
To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.
So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.
So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.
Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
The very hangry iguana?
Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.
Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.
Wait, hold on, what?
As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).
While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.
But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.
M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.
So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
No allergies? Let them give up cake
Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.
Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.
More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).
The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.
A whole new, tiny level of hangry
Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.
New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.
Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.
To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.
So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.
So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.
Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
The very hangry iguana?
Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.
Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.
Wait, hold on, what?
As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).
While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.
But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.
M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.
So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
No allergies? Let them give up cake
Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.
Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.
More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).
The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.
MRD: Powerful metric for CLL research
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.
“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.
The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).
“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x106 leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.
“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.
The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.
Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.
Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”
An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.
“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.
Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.
FROM FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
‘Excess’ deaths surging, but why?
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
“Excess deaths.” You’ve heard the phrase countless times by now. It is one of the myriad of previously esoteric epidemiology terms that the pandemic brought squarely into the zeitgeist.
As a sort of standard candle of the performance of a state or a region or a country in terms of health care, it has a lot of utility – if for nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking. But this week, I want to dig in on the concept a bit because, according to a new study, the excess death gap between the United States and Western Europe has never been higher.
You might imagine that the best way to figure this out is for some group of intelligent people to review each death and decide, somehow, whether it was expected or not. But aside from being impractical, this would end up being somewhat subjective. That older person who died from pneumonia – was that an expected death? Could it have been avoided?
Rather, the calculation of excess mortality relies on large numbers and statistical inference to compare an expected number of deaths with those that are observed.
The difference is excess mortality, even if you can never be sure whether any particular death was expected or not.
As always, however, the devil is in the details. What data do you use to define the expected number of deaths?
There are options here. Probably the most straightforward analysis uses past data from the country of interest. You look at annual deaths over some historical period of time and compare those numbers with the rates today. Two issues need to be accounted for here: population growth – a larger population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust the historical population with current levels, and demographic shifts – an older or more male population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust for that as well.
But provided you take care of those factors, you can estimate fairly well how many deaths you can expect to see in any given period of time.
Still, you should see right away that excess mortality is a relative concept. If you think that, just perhaps, the United States has some systematic failure to deliver care that has been stable and persistent over time, you wouldn’t capture that failing in an excess mortality calculation that uses U.S. historical data as the baseline.
The best way to get around that is to use data from other countries, and that’s just what this article – a rare single-author piece by Patrick Heuveline – does, calculating excess deaths in the United States by standardizing our mortality rates to the five largest Western European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
Controlling for the differences in the demographics of that European population, here is the expected number of deaths in the United States over the past 5 years.
Note that there is a small uptick in expected deaths in 2020, reflecting the pandemic, which returns to baseline levels by 2021. This is because that’s what happened in Europe; by 2021, the excess mortality due to COVID-19 was quite low.
Here are the actual deaths in the US during that time.
Highlighted here in green, then, is the excess mortality over time in the United States.
There are some fascinating and concerning findings here.
First of all, you can see that even before the pandemic, the United States has an excess mortality problem. This is not entirely a surprise; we’ve known that so-called “deaths of despair,” those due to alcohol abuse, drug overdoses, and suicide, are at an all-time high and tend to affect a “prime of life” population that would not otherwise be expected to die. In fact, fully 50% of the excess deaths in the United States occur in those between ages 15 and 64.
Excess deaths are also a concerning percentage of total deaths. In 2017, 17% of total deaths in the United States could be considered “excess.” In 2021, that number had doubled to 35%. Nearly 900,000 individuals in the United States died in 2021 who perhaps didn’t need to.
The obvious culprit to blame here is COVID, but COVID-associated excess deaths only explain about 50% of the excess we see in 2021. The rest reflect something even more concerning: a worsening of the failures of the past, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic but not due to the virus itself.
Of course, we started this discussion acknowledging that the calculation of excess mortality is exquisitely dependent on how you model the expected number of deaths, and I’m sure some will take issue with the use of European numbers when applied to Americans. After all, Europe has, by and large, a robust public health service, socialized medicine, and healthcare that does not run the risk of bankrupting its citizens. How can we compare our outcomes to a place like that?
How indeed.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven,Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
“Excess deaths.” You’ve heard the phrase countless times by now. It is one of the myriad of previously esoteric epidemiology terms that the pandemic brought squarely into the zeitgeist.
As a sort of standard candle of the performance of a state or a region or a country in terms of health care, it has a lot of utility – if for nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking. But this week, I want to dig in on the concept a bit because, according to a new study, the excess death gap between the United States and Western Europe has never been higher.
You might imagine that the best way to figure this out is for some group of intelligent people to review each death and decide, somehow, whether it was expected or not. But aside from being impractical, this would end up being somewhat subjective. That older person who died from pneumonia – was that an expected death? Could it have been avoided?
Rather, the calculation of excess mortality relies on large numbers and statistical inference to compare an expected number of deaths with those that are observed.
The difference is excess mortality, even if you can never be sure whether any particular death was expected or not.
As always, however, the devil is in the details. What data do you use to define the expected number of deaths?
There are options here. Probably the most straightforward analysis uses past data from the country of interest. You look at annual deaths over some historical period of time and compare those numbers with the rates today. Two issues need to be accounted for here: population growth – a larger population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust the historical population with current levels, and demographic shifts – an older or more male population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust for that as well.
But provided you take care of those factors, you can estimate fairly well how many deaths you can expect to see in any given period of time.
Still, you should see right away that excess mortality is a relative concept. If you think that, just perhaps, the United States has some systematic failure to deliver care that has been stable and persistent over time, you wouldn’t capture that failing in an excess mortality calculation that uses U.S. historical data as the baseline.
The best way to get around that is to use data from other countries, and that’s just what this article – a rare single-author piece by Patrick Heuveline – does, calculating excess deaths in the United States by standardizing our mortality rates to the five largest Western European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
Controlling for the differences in the demographics of that European population, here is the expected number of deaths in the United States over the past 5 years.
Note that there is a small uptick in expected deaths in 2020, reflecting the pandemic, which returns to baseline levels by 2021. This is because that’s what happened in Europe; by 2021, the excess mortality due to COVID-19 was quite low.
Here are the actual deaths in the US during that time.
Highlighted here in green, then, is the excess mortality over time in the United States.
There are some fascinating and concerning findings here.
First of all, you can see that even before the pandemic, the United States has an excess mortality problem. This is not entirely a surprise; we’ve known that so-called “deaths of despair,” those due to alcohol abuse, drug overdoses, and suicide, are at an all-time high and tend to affect a “prime of life” population that would not otherwise be expected to die. In fact, fully 50% of the excess deaths in the United States occur in those between ages 15 and 64.
Excess deaths are also a concerning percentage of total deaths. In 2017, 17% of total deaths in the United States could be considered “excess.” In 2021, that number had doubled to 35%. Nearly 900,000 individuals in the United States died in 2021 who perhaps didn’t need to.
The obvious culprit to blame here is COVID, but COVID-associated excess deaths only explain about 50% of the excess we see in 2021. The rest reflect something even more concerning: a worsening of the failures of the past, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic but not due to the virus itself.
Of course, we started this discussion acknowledging that the calculation of excess mortality is exquisitely dependent on how you model the expected number of deaths, and I’m sure some will take issue with the use of European numbers when applied to Americans. After all, Europe has, by and large, a robust public health service, socialized medicine, and healthcare that does not run the risk of bankrupting its citizens. How can we compare our outcomes to a place like that?
How indeed.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven,Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
“Excess deaths.” You’ve heard the phrase countless times by now. It is one of the myriad of previously esoteric epidemiology terms that the pandemic brought squarely into the zeitgeist.
As a sort of standard candle of the performance of a state or a region or a country in terms of health care, it has a lot of utility – if for nothing more than Monday-morning quarterbacking. But this week, I want to dig in on the concept a bit because, according to a new study, the excess death gap between the United States and Western Europe has never been higher.
You might imagine that the best way to figure this out is for some group of intelligent people to review each death and decide, somehow, whether it was expected or not. But aside from being impractical, this would end up being somewhat subjective. That older person who died from pneumonia – was that an expected death? Could it have been avoided?
Rather, the calculation of excess mortality relies on large numbers and statistical inference to compare an expected number of deaths with those that are observed.
The difference is excess mortality, even if you can never be sure whether any particular death was expected or not.
As always, however, the devil is in the details. What data do you use to define the expected number of deaths?
There are options here. Probably the most straightforward analysis uses past data from the country of interest. You look at annual deaths over some historical period of time and compare those numbers with the rates today. Two issues need to be accounted for here: population growth – a larger population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust the historical population with current levels, and demographic shifts – an older or more male population will have more deaths, so you need to adjust for that as well.
But provided you take care of those factors, you can estimate fairly well how many deaths you can expect to see in any given period of time.
Still, you should see right away that excess mortality is a relative concept. If you think that, just perhaps, the United States has some systematic failure to deliver care that has been stable and persistent over time, you wouldn’t capture that failing in an excess mortality calculation that uses U.S. historical data as the baseline.
The best way to get around that is to use data from other countries, and that’s just what this article – a rare single-author piece by Patrick Heuveline – does, calculating excess deaths in the United States by standardizing our mortality rates to the five largest Western European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.
Controlling for the differences in the demographics of that European population, here is the expected number of deaths in the United States over the past 5 years.
Note that there is a small uptick in expected deaths in 2020, reflecting the pandemic, which returns to baseline levels by 2021. This is because that’s what happened in Europe; by 2021, the excess mortality due to COVID-19 was quite low.
Here are the actual deaths in the US during that time.
Highlighted here in green, then, is the excess mortality over time in the United States.
There are some fascinating and concerning findings here.
First of all, you can see that even before the pandemic, the United States has an excess mortality problem. This is not entirely a surprise; we’ve known that so-called “deaths of despair,” those due to alcohol abuse, drug overdoses, and suicide, are at an all-time high and tend to affect a “prime of life” population that would not otherwise be expected to die. In fact, fully 50% of the excess deaths in the United States occur in those between ages 15 and 64.
Excess deaths are also a concerning percentage of total deaths. In 2017, 17% of total deaths in the United States could be considered “excess.” In 2021, that number had doubled to 35%. Nearly 900,000 individuals in the United States died in 2021 who perhaps didn’t need to.
The obvious culprit to blame here is COVID, but COVID-associated excess deaths only explain about 50% of the excess we see in 2021. The rest reflect something even more concerning: a worsening of the failures of the past, perhaps exacerbated by the pandemic but not due to the virus itself.
Of course, we started this discussion acknowledging that the calculation of excess mortality is exquisitely dependent on how you model the expected number of deaths, and I’m sure some will take issue with the use of European numbers when applied to Americans. After all, Europe has, by and large, a robust public health service, socialized medicine, and healthcare that does not run the risk of bankrupting its citizens. How can we compare our outcomes to a place like that?
How indeed.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven,Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sweaty treatment for social anxiety could pass the sniff test
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?
Getting sweet on sweat
Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.
Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.
Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.
Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.
The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.
Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
The puff that vaccinates
Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.
During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.
In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.
Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!
Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.
Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.
While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.
More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
Your hippocampus is showing
Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.
“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.
Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.
Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.
The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:
“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”
“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”
“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”
“I said I can find it.”
“Just ask her.”
“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?