MDedge Pediatrics

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that vaccination rates in this country fell during the frenzy created by the COVID pandemic. We had a lot on our plates. Schools closed and many of us retreated into what seemed to be the safety of our homes. Parents were reluctant to take their children anywhere, let alone a pediatrician’s office. State health agencies wisely focused on collecting case figures and then shepherding the efforts to immunize against SARS-CoV-2 once vaccines were available. Tracking and promoting the existing children’s vaccinations fell off the priority list, even in places with exemplary vaccination rates.

Whether or not the pandemic is over continues to be a topic for debate, but there is clearly a general shift toward a new normalcy. However, vaccination rates of our children have not rebounded to prepandemic levels. In fact, in some areas they are continuing to fall.

In a recent guest essay in the New York Times, Ezekiel J. Emmanuel, MD, PhD, a physician and professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and Matthew Guido, his research assistant, explore the reasons for this lack of a significant rebound. The authors cite recent outbreaks of measles in Ohio and polio in New York City as examples of the peril we are facing if we fail to reverse the trend. In some areas measles vaccine rates alarmingly have dipped below the threshold for herd immunity.

While Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido acknowledge that the pandemic was a major driver of the falling vaccination rates they lay blame on the persistent decline on three factors that they view as correctable: nonmedical exemptions, our failure to vigorously enforce existing vaccine requirements, and inadequate public health campaigns.

The authors underestimate the lingering effect of the pandemic on parents’ vaccine hesitancy. As a septuagenarian who often hangs out with other septuagenarians I view the rapid development and effectiveness of the COVID vaccine as astounding and a boost for vaccines in general. However, were I much younger I might treat the vaccine’s success with a shrug. After some initial concern, the younger half of the population didn’t seem to see the illness as much of a threat to themselves or their peers. This attitude was reinforced by the fact that few of their peers, including those who were unvaccinated, were getting seriously ill. Despite all the hype, most parents and their children never ended up getting seriously ill.

You can understand why many parents might be quick to toss what you and I consider a successful COVID vaccine onto what they view as a growing pile of vaccines for diseases that in their experience have never sickened or killed anyone they have known.

Let’s be honest: Over the last half century we have produced several generations of parents who have little knowledge and certainly no personal experience with a childhood disease on the order or magnitude of polio. The vaccines that we have developed during their lifetimes have been targeted at diseases such as haemophilus influenzae meningitis that, while serious and anxiety provoking for pediatricians, occur so sporadically that most parents have no personal experience to motivate them to vaccinate their children.

Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido are correct in advocating for the broader elimination of nonmedical exemptions and urging us to find the political will to vigorously enforce the vaccine requirements we have already enacted. I agree that our promotional campaigns need to be more robust. But, this will be a difficult challenge unless we can impress our audience with our straight talk and honesty. We must acknowledge and then explain why all vaccines are not created equal and that some are of more critical importance than others.

We are slowly learning that education isn’t the cure-all for vaccine hesitancy we once thought it was. And using scare tactics can backfire and create dysfunctional anxiety. We must choosing our words and target audience carefully. And ... having the political will to force parents into doing the right thing will be critical if we wish to restore our vaccination rates.

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

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that vaccination rates in this country fell during the frenzy created by the COVID pandemic. We had a lot on our plates. Schools closed and many of us retreated into what seemed to be the safety of our homes. Parents were reluctant to take their children anywhere, let alone a pediatrician’s office. State health agencies wisely focused on collecting case figures and then shepherding the efforts to immunize against SARS-CoV-2 once vaccines were available. Tracking and promoting the existing children’s vaccinations fell off the priority list, even in places with exemplary vaccination rates.

Whether or not the pandemic is over continues to be a topic for debate, but there is clearly a general shift toward a new normalcy. However, vaccination rates of our children have not rebounded to prepandemic levels. In fact, in some areas they are continuing to fall.

In a recent guest essay in the New York Times, Ezekiel J. Emmanuel, MD, PhD, a physician and professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and Matthew Guido, his research assistant, explore the reasons for this lack of a significant rebound. The authors cite recent outbreaks of measles in Ohio and polio in New York City as examples of the peril we are facing if we fail to reverse the trend. In some areas measles vaccine rates alarmingly have dipped below the threshold for herd immunity.

While Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido acknowledge that the pandemic was a major driver of the falling vaccination rates they lay blame on the persistent decline on three factors that they view as correctable: nonmedical exemptions, our failure to vigorously enforce existing vaccine requirements, and inadequate public health campaigns.

The authors underestimate the lingering effect of the pandemic on parents’ vaccine hesitancy. As a septuagenarian who often hangs out with other septuagenarians I view the rapid development and effectiveness of the COVID vaccine as astounding and a boost for vaccines in general. However, were I much younger I might treat the vaccine’s success with a shrug. After some initial concern, the younger half of the population didn’t seem to see the illness as much of a threat to themselves or their peers. This attitude was reinforced by the fact that few of their peers, including those who were unvaccinated, were getting seriously ill. Despite all the hype, most parents and their children never ended up getting seriously ill.

You can understand why many parents might be quick to toss what you and I consider a successful COVID vaccine onto what they view as a growing pile of vaccines for diseases that in their experience have never sickened or killed anyone they have known.

Let’s be honest: Over the last half century we have produced several generations of parents who have little knowledge and certainly no personal experience with a childhood disease on the order or magnitude of polio. The vaccines that we have developed during their lifetimes have been targeted at diseases such as haemophilus influenzae meningitis that, while serious and anxiety provoking for pediatricians, occur so sporadically that most parents have no personal experience to motivate them to vaccinate their children.

Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido are correct in advocating for the broader elimination of nonmedical exemptions and urging us to find the political will to vigorously enforce the vaccine requirements we have already enacted. I agree that our promotional campaigns need to be more robust. But, this will be a difficult challenge unless we can impress our audience with our straight talk and honesty. We must acknowledge and then explain why all vaccines are not created equal and that some are of more critical importance than others.

We are slowly learning that education isn’t the cure-all for vaccine hesitancy we once thought it was. And using scare tactics can backfire and create dysfunctional anxiety. We must choosing our words and target audience carefully. And ... having the political will to force parents into doing the right thing will be critical if we wish to restore our vaccination rates.

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

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that vaccination rates in this country fell during the frenzy created by the COVID pandemic. We had a lot on our plates. Schools closed and many of us retreated into what seemed to be the safety of our homes. Parents were reluctant to take their children anywhere, let alone a pediatrician’s office. State health agencies wisely focused on collecting case figures and then shepherding the efforts to immunize against SARS-CoV-2 once vaccines were available. Tracking and promoting the existing children’s vaccinations fell off the priority list, even in places with exemplary vaccination rates.

Whether or not the pandemic is over continues to be a topic for debate, but there is clearly a general shift toward a new normalcy. However, vaccination rates of our children have not rebounded to prepandemic levels. In fact, in some areas they are continuing to fall.

In a recent guest essay in the New York Times, Ezekiel J. Emmanuel, MD, PhD, a physician and professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and Matthew Guido, his research assistant, explore the reasons for this lack of a significant rebound. The authors cite recent outbreaks of measles in Ohio and polio in New York City as examples of the peril we are facing if we fail to reverse the trend. In some areas measles vaccine rates alarmingly have dipped below the threshold for herd immunity.

While Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido acknowledge that the pandemic was a major driver of the falling vaccination rates they lay blame on the persistent decline on three factors that they view as correctable: nonmedical exemptions, our failure to vigorously enforce existing vaccine requirements, and inadequate public health campaigns.

The authors underestimate the lingering effect of the pandemic on parents’ vaccine hesitancy. As a septuagenarian who often hangs out with other septuagenarians I view the rapid development and effectiveness of the COVID vaccine as astounding and a boost for vaccines in general. However, were I much younger I might treat the vaccine’s success with a shrug. After some initial concern, the younger half of the population didn’t seem to see the illness as much of a threat to themselves or their peers. This attitude was reinforced by the fact that few of their peers, including those who were unvaccinated, were getting seriously ill. Despite all the hype, most parents and their children never ended up getting seriously ill.

You can understand why many parents might be quick to toss what you and I consider a successful COVID vaccine onto what they view as a growing pile of vaccines for diseases that in their experience have never sickened or killed anyone they have known.

Let’s be honest: Over the last half century we have produced several generations of parents who have little knowledge and certainly no personal experience with a childhood disease on the order or magnitude of polio. The vaccines that we have developed during their lifetimes have been targeted at diseases such as haemophilus influenzae meningitis that, while serious and anxiety provoking for pediatricians, occur so sporadically that most parents have no personal experience to motivate them to vaccinate their children.

Dr. Emmanuel and Mr. Guido are correct in advocating for the broader elimination of nonmedical exemptions and urging us to find the political will to vigorously enforce the vaccine requirements we have already enacted. I agree that our promotional campaigns need to be more robust. But, this will be a difficult challenge unless we can impress our audience with our straight talk and honesty. We must acknowledge and then explain why all vaccines are not created equal and that some are of more critical importance than others.

We are slowly learning that education isn’t the cure-all for vaccine hesitancy we once thought it was. And using scare tactics can backfire and create dysfunctional anxiety. We must choosing our words and target audience carefully. And ... having the political will to force parents into doing the right thing will be critical if we wish to restore our vaccination rates.

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

A new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for treating molluscum contagiosum (MC) has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer announced.

If the submission is accepted by the FDA, the topical product could be approved in the first quarter of 2024, according to a press release from Novan, the manufacturer. If approved, it would be the first-in-class topical treatment for MC, the common, contagious viral skin infection that affects approximately six million individuals in the United States each year, most of them children aged 1-14 years, the statement noted. No FDA-approved therapies currently exist for the condition, which causes unsightly lesions on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist untreated for a period of years.

The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a nitric oxide–releasing agent. A 3.4% formulation is in development for the topical treatment of acne, according to the company.

The submission for FDA approval is based on data from the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 randomized trial of nearly 900 individuals with MC aged 6 months and older (mean age, 6.6 years), with 3-70 raised lesions. Participants were randomized to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks. The results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

The primary outcome was complete clearance of all lesions. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved this outcome vs. 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001). Overall adverse event rates were low in both groups; 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events across both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

A new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for treating molluscum contagiosum (MC) has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer announced.

If the submission is accepted by the FDA, the topical product could be approved in the first quarter of 2024, according to a press release from Novan, the manufacturer. If approved, it would be the first-in-class topical treatment for MC, the common, contagious viral skin infection that affects approximately six million individuals in the United States each year, most of them children aged 1-14 years, the statement noted. No FDA-approved therapies currently exist for the condition, which causes unsightly lesions on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist untreated for a period of years.

The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a nitric oxide–releasing agent. A 3.4% formulation is in development for the topical treatment of acne, according to the company.

The submission for FDA approval is based on data from the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 randomized trial of nearly 900 individuals with MC aged 6 months and older (mean age, 6.6 years), with 3-70 raised lesions. Participants were randomized to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks. The results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

The primary outcome was complete clearance of all lesions. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved this outcome vs. 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001). Overall adverse event rates were low in both groups; 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events across both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

A new drug application for berdazimer gel 10.3% for treating molluscum contagiosum (MC) has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer announced.

If the submission is accepted by the FDA, the topical product could be approved in the first quarter of 2024, according to a press release from Novan, the manufacturer. If approved, it would be the first-in-class topical treatment for MC, the common, contagious viral skin infection that affects approximately six million individuals in the United States each year, most of them children aged 1-14 years, the statement noted. No FDA-approved therapies currently exist for the condition, which causes unsightly lesions on the face, trunk, limbs, and axillae that may persist untreated for a period of years.

The active ingredient in berdazimer gel 10.3% is berdazimer sodium, a nitric oxide–releasing agent. A 3.4% formulation is in development for the topical treatment of acne, according to the company.

The submission for FDA approval is based on data from the B-SIMPLE4 study, a phase 3 randomized trial of nearly 900 individuals with MC aged 6 months and older (mean age, 6.6 years), with 3-70 raised lesions. Participants were randomized to treatment with berdazimer gel 10.3% or a vehicle gel applied in a thin layer to all lesions once daily for 12 weeks. The results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

The primary outcome was complete clearance of all lesions. At 12 weeks, 32.4% of patients in the berdazimer group achieved this outcome vs. 19.7% of those in the vehicle group (P < .001). Overall adverse event rates were low in both groups; 4.1% of patients on berdazimer and 0.7% of those on the vehicle experienced adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse events across both groups were application-site pain and erythema, and most of these were mild or moderate.

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Intervening with physical activity appears to mitigate depressive symptoms in children and adolescents, a systematic review and meta-analysis of almost 2,500 participants found. Greater reductions were observed for children older than 13 years and those having a diagnosis of mental illness and/or depression versus other conditions, according to Hong Kong researchers reporting in JAMA Pediatrics.

“There is an urgent need to explore novel treatment approaches that can be safely, feasibly, and widely implemented in the daily routine of depressed children and adolescents,” said study coauthor Parco M. Siu, PhD, exercise physiologist and associate professor in the school of public health at the University of Hong Kong, in an interview. “Given the observed association with significant reductions in symptoms, clinical practice guidelines should consider the role of physical activity for improving the mental health of young populations.”

Dr. Siu further noted that while current guidelines suggest psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy for children with this common mood disorder, adherence to these can be problematic, and surveys show that nearly 80% do not receive appropriate disorder-specific medical care.

The analysis

Dr. Siu’s team drew on 21 international studies, including 17 randomized controlled trials, published from 1987 to 2021 and comprising 2,444 young participants, mean age 14, 53% girls. Eligible studies compared the effect of exercise on depression versus a control condition.

In 12 studies, participants had a somatic or psychiatric disorder such as obesity, diabetes, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The mean duration of the prescribed physical activity program was 22 weeks (6-144 weeks), while the frequency of weekly sessions ranged from 2 to 5 days, with 3 days per week most common and mean duration of 50 minutes (30-120 minutes). Regimens ranged from aerobic exercise on fitness equipment such as treadmills, stationary bikes, and ellipticals, to running, swimming, dancing, sports, and exercise games.

In meta-analysis of postintervention differences, physical activity was associated with a significant reduction in the pooled estimate of depressive symptoms compared with the control condition (Hedges g statistic [effect size] = −0.29; 95% confidence interval, −0.47 to −0.10; P = .004). This was driven by moderate to large effect sizes in adolescents (g = −0.44) and children with diagnosed depression (g = −0.75).The differences, however, were not detectable after a mean follow-up of 21 weeks, possibly owing to the limited number of studies with follow-up outcomes, the authors conceded.

Despite the strong association, the mechanisms underlying the antidepressant properties of physical activity remain uncertain. “Potential pathways include the activation of the endocannabinoid system to stimulate the release of endorphins, an increase in the bioavailability of brain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline, which are reduced in depression, as well as long-term changes in brain plasticity,” Dr. Siu said.

In addition, psychosocial and behavioral hypotheses suggest that physical activity can lead to improvements in self-perception, social interactions, and self-confidence. However, he added, depressive phenomenology is multifaceted and individual, so isolating the effects that physical activity have on specific symptoms may not be possible.

Physical activity appears to enhance the treatment of cognitive and affective symptoms in depression, Dr. Siu continued, and a combination of physical activity and pharmacotherapy may also reduce relapse risk, improve adherence to antidepressants, and promote better management of adverse effects, compared with pharmacotherapy alone. “More research is warranted to explain if and how these mechanisms moderate the effect of physical activity, and whether these changes are also present in younger populations,” he said.

Still unanswered is the question of how vigorous activity has to be in order to have an effect, Dr. Siu said. “Future studies should investigate the influence of parameters such as frequency, duration, and supervision of exercise sessions to determine the optimal dose and mode of delivery of the intervention for depressive symptom management.”

But would group activity likely have broader benefits than solitary exercise? “It is still unclear whether there’s a difference between the effect of solitary activities and team sports,” Dr. Siu said.

In an accompanying editorial on the meta-analysis, Eduardo E. Bustamante, PhD, an exercise psychologist in the department of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues called the meta-analysis “part of a potential watershed moment” in the field of exercise as therapy for psychological disorders. “The work is timely, aligning with the rise of mental health disorders in adolescents, and the methods are rigorous (e.g., random-effects models, risk-of-bias assessment, sensitivity analyses).”

Dr. Bustamante said the literature on physical activity in children has lagged behind that for adults, so this meta-analysis provides a welcome “critical mass” of evidence of benefit in children, in an interview. “Though the benefit is relatively small, it’s exciting to see the results come in positive specifically to depression.” In his view, the effect of exercise is likely to be less pronounced in children than in adults, especially older ones, as they have fewer inflammatory and other systemic health problems that might improve with exercise. “And we tend to see bigger effects in children with a diagnosis like ADHD or clinical depression.”

But the bottom line is clear: “The evidence that physical activity is effective medicine for mental health is robust; now we need to find ways to get people to take it.”

This work was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and the Seed Fund for Basic Research of the University of Hong Kong. The authors and editorial commentators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Teens who compulsively checked social media networks showed different development patterns in parts of the brain that involve reward and punishment than did those who didn’t check their platforms as often, new research suggests.

Results were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Researchers, led by Maria T. Maza, of the department of psychology and neuroscience at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, included 169 6th- and 7th-grade students recruited from three public middle schools in rural North Carolina in a 3-year longitudinal cohort.

Participants reported how frequently they checked Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Answers were grouped into eight score groups depending on their per-day check times: less than 1; 1; 2-3; 4-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; or more than 20 times. Those groups were then broken into three categories: low (nonhabitual); moderate; and high (habitual).
 

Imaging shows reactions

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see how different areas of the brain react when participants looked at a series of indicators, such as happy and angry faces, which mimic social media rewards, punishments, or neutral feedback.

The research team focused on adolescents, for whom social media participation and neural sensitivity to social feedback from peers are high.

They found that participants who frequently checked social media showed distinct brain patterns when anticipating social feedback compared with those who had moderate or low use, “suggesting that habitual social media checking early in adolescence is associated with divergent brain development over time.”

The affected regions of the brain included the networks that respond to motivation and cognitive control.

However, the study was not able to determine whether the differences are a good or bad thing.

“While for some individuals with habitual checking behaviors, an initial hyposensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments followed by hypersensitivity may contribute to checking behaviors on social media becoming compulsive and problematic, for others, this change in sensitivity may reflect an adaptive behavior that allows them to better navigate their increasingly digital environment,” the authors wrote.
 

Chicken-and-egg questions

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, who was not part of this research, said in an interview that it’s not clear from this study which came first – different brain development in the teens prior to this study that caused compulsive checking, or checking behaviors that caused different brain development. The authors acknowledge this is a limitation of the study.

“Hopefully, someday researchers will look at some of these brain activation patterns before kids have been exposed to social media to help us sort some of these questions out,” Dr. Rettew said.

“It wasn’t as though the groups looked the same at baseline and then diverged as they used more and more social media,” Dr. Rettew said. “It looked like there were some baseline differences that could be traced back maybe years before the study even started.”

People hear “divergent brain development” associated with social media and naturally get alarmed, he acknowledged.

“I get that, but the study isn’t really equipped to tell us what should be happening in the brain and what changes may have implications for other parts of an adolescent’s life,” Dr. Rettew said,  “In the end, what we have is an association between heavy social media use and certain brain activation patterns which is cool to see and measure.”

He agrees with the authors, however, that overuse of social media is concerning and studying its effects is important.
 

Seventy-eight percent of early adolescents check every hour

According to the paper, 78% of 13- to 17-year-olds report checking their devices at least every hour and 46% check “almost constantly.”

“Regardless of which brain regions light up when looking at various emoji responses to their Instagram post, I think it is valid already to have some concerns about youth who can’t stay off their phone for more than 10 minutes,” Dr. Rettew said. “Technology is here to stay, but how we can learn to use it rather than have it use us is probably the more pressing question at this point.”

One coauthor reports grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation outside the submitted work; a coauthor reports grants from the Winston Family Foundation; and a coauthor reports a grant from NIDA and funds from the Winston Family Foundation – both during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Rettew is author of the book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.”

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Could gut health be behind a person’s motivation – or lack thereof – to exercise?

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia recently explored this topic when they wanted to find out why some lab mice seem to love their exercise wheel, while others mostly ignore it.

To start, the researchers used a machine-learning algorithm to look for biological traits that could explain the differences in activity levels among mice. And what they found surprised them: Genetics seemed to have little to do with it, but differences in gut bacteria appeared to matter more. A handful of studies backed that up: Thriving gut microbiomes have been linked with optimal muscle function in mice.

Sure enough, when the researchers dosed mice with broad-spectrum antibiotics, killing off their gut bacteria, the distance the rodents were able to run dropped by half. But off the antibiotics, the mice mostly regained their previous performance levels.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that the gut microbiome may help regulate the desire to exercise. 

If confirmed in humans, this hypothesis could help explain why so many Americans fail to get the recommended amount of physical activity. Some may blame lack of time, energy, or interest. But perhaps the reason could come down to the trillions of microbes living in their gut. 

This line of research could also lead to microbiome-based ways to get sedentary people off the couch or optimize athletic performance.  

But how could one’s microbiome impact the motivation to move? To find the answer, the researchers zeroed in on the brain. 
 

The gut-brain connection

After treating the mice with antibiotics, the researchers sequenced RNA in the rodents’ striatum (the part of the brain responsible for motivation). They found reduced gene expression in the cells’ dopamine receptors – which release the neurochemical dopamine, making one feel like they’ve accomplished something good. In other words: Mice treated with antibiotics were getting less of a dopamine hit after their run. 

“Only when we started focusing on the brain did we understand that the microbiome’s effect on exercise capacity was mediated by the central and peripheral nervous systems,” said study author Christoph Thaiss, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “This realization completely changed the trajectory of the project.”

To find out how, exactly, bacteria in the colon were signaling the brain, the researchers performed a series of experiments over several years. They identified two types of bacteria, Eubacterium rectale and Coprococcus eutactus. These strains produce compounds called fatty acid amides that interact with endocannabinoid receptors in the gut. 

Those endocannabinoid receptors signal the brain to cut back its production of monoamine oxidase, the compound that breaks down dopamine. With less of this dopamine-clearing compound in the brain, more dopamine could build up after a long run, making the mice feel good and eager to hit the exercise wheel again soon. 

This gut-brain pathway “may have evolved to couple the initiation of prolonged physical activity to the nutritional status of the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Thaiss said. Gut bacteria monitor what’s in your colon and tell your brain whether you have enough food to fuel a workout. 

The colon, or gut, hosts trillions of microbes with potentially hundreds of different bacteria strains. These strains are determined by the food we eat and the environment we occupy.

“The genetic impact on the microbiome is rather minor,” Dr. Thaiss said, “but lifestyle factors strongly impact the composition of the gut microbiome.”

He hopes to develop nutritional interventions to encourage the growth of the motivating types of bacteria, the kind that make a person want to go for a 5-mile run.
 

What’s next?  

Moving forward,  the researchers need to find out whether the gut affects motivation in humans, too. To do that, they’re analyzing the gut microbiomes of people with varying levels of exercise motivation. 

“With enough samples, we could potentially correlate species of microbiota that exist in exercise-motivated individuals,” said study coauthor Nicholas Betley, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Variations in the gut microbiome could help explain the “runner’s high” that some people have in a long-distance race. The research could also help promote weight training or sports participation. 

“Imagine if a sports team could optimally motivate the athletes on the team to exercise,” said Dr. Betley. The lab is investigating the microbiome’s impact on high-intensity interval training.

Signals from the gut to the brain could be affecting body processes in other ways too, the researchers speculated. 

“There are so many possibilities for how these signals may change physiology and impact health,” Dr. Betley said. “A new set of studies may well establish a whole new branch of exercise physiology.”

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nine top professional emergency medicine organizations in the United States jointly issued a letter expressing concerns about the misleading and incomplete nature of a systematic review issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on diagnostic errors in the emergency department.

The AHRQ review, issued on Dec. 15, 2022, stated that the findings of their study translate “to about 1 in 18 emergency department patients receiving an incorrect diagnosis, 1 in 50 suffering an adverse event, and 1 in 350 suffering permanent disability or death.” The authors describe these rates as similar to those seen in primary care and inpatient hospital settings.

The review was conducted through an Evidence-Based Practice Center as part of AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. The authors included data from 279 studies in the review. They identified the five most frequently misdiagnosed conditions in the ED as stroke, MI, aortic aneurysm and dissection, spinal cord compression and injury, and venous thromboembolism.

The authors noted that, given an estimated 130 million ED visits in the United States each year, the overall rate of incorrect diagnoses in the ED is approximately 5.7% and that 2.0% of the patients whose conditions were misdiagnosed suffer an adverse event as a result. On a local level, the authors estimate that an average ED with approximately 25,000 visits per year could experience 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths. However, the authors noted that the overall error and harm rates were based on three studies from outside the United States (Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) and that only two of these were used to estimate harms.

“It’s imperative that we, as emergency physicians, inform the public that the AHRQ report used flawed methodology and statistics that extrapolated – and therefore overstated – the potential for harm when receiving care in US emergency departments,” Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health and an assistant professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview.
 

Emergency medicine organizations express concerns for accuracy

The American College of Emergency Physicians and eight other medical organizations representing emergency medicine in the United States sent a letter to the AHRQ on Dec. 14, 2022, spelling out their concerns. The review was conducted as part of the AHRQ’s ongoing Effective Health Care Program, and the organizations had the opportunity to review a draft before it was published. On reading the review, they asked that the publication of the review be delayed. “After reviewing the executive summary and initial draft, we believe that the report makes misleading, incomplete, and erroneous conclusions from the literature reviewed and conveys a tone that inaccurately characterizes and unnecessarily disparages the practice of emergency medicine in the United States,” the organizations wrote in their letter.

The concerns of the emergency medicine organizations fell into four categories: misrepresentation of the practice and nature of emergency medicine; applicability of references cited; inaccurate interpretation of malpractice data; and the reporting of a single overall diagnostic error rate of 5.7% in EDs.

The practice of emergency medicine is variable and unique among specialties in that the focus is less about the final diagnosis and more about immediate identification and treatment of life-threatening conditions, according to the letter.

Notably, many of the studies cited did not mention whether the patient’s final diagnosis was apparent on admission to the ED. “Without this knowledge, it is completely inappropriate to label such discrepancies as ‘ED diagnostic error,’ ” the organizations wrote.

All medical specialties have room for improvement, but the current AHRQ review appears not to identify these opportunities, and instead of contributing to a discussion of improving patient care in the ED, it may cause harm by presenting misinformation, they said.
 

Misleading and inadequate evidence

“I strongly agree with the concerns mentioned from ACEP and other key organizations about the problems and conclusions reached in the AHRQ report,” Dr. Glatter said in an interview.

“The methodology used to arrive at the conclusions [in the review] was flawed and does not provide an accurate estimate of diagnostic error and, consequently, misdiagnosis and deaths occurring in emergency departments in the U.S.,” he said. “The startling headline that 250,000 people die annually in U.S. EDs was extrapolated from a single study based on one death that occurred in a Canadian ED in 2004,” Dr. Glatter noted. “Clearly, this is not only poor methodology but flawed science.”

The AHRQ report misused one death from this single study to estimate the death rate across the United States, Dr. Glatter explained, and this overestimate improperly inflated and magnified the number of potential patients that may have been harmed by physician error.

“This flawed evidence would actually place ED misdiagnoses in the top five causes of death in the United States, with 1 in every 500 ED patients dying as a result of an error by a physician. Simply put, there is just no evidence to support such a claim,” said Dr. Glatter.

The repercussions of the AHRQ review could be harmful to patients by instilling fear and doubt about the ability of emergency physicians to diagnose those who present with life-threatening conditions, Dr. Glatter said.

“This more balanced and accurate picture of the role of emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing such emergencies needs to be communicated to the public in order to reassure and instill confidence in our role in the sequence of emergency care in relation to continuity of care in patients presenting to the ED,” he said.

“While our primary role as emergency medicine physicians is to stabilize and evaluate patients, arriving at a particular diagnosis is not always possible for some conditions,” and additional diagnostic testing is often needed to identify more specific causes of symptoms, Dr. Glatter added.

Additional research is needed for a more accurate representation of diagnostic errors in the ED, said Dr. Glatter. New prospective studies are needed to address outcomes in U.S. EDs that account for the latest advances and diagnostic modalities in emergency medicine, “particularly advances in bedside ultrasound that can expedite critical decision-making, which can be lifesaving.

“The AHRQ report is simply not an accurate reflection of the technology and skill set that current emergency medicine practice offers our patients in 2023.”

Dr. Glatter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.