User login
GI symptoms during menopause deserve attention
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.
Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.
Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.
Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
Impact on GI motility
One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.
One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.
When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.
Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.
When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.
This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.
Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.
Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance
Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.
Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.
This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.
Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.
Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.
Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality
Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.
Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.
Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.
In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.
As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”
These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis
One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.
We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.
However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.
This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.
Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.
Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.
Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?
We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.
I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Teledermatology: A Postpandemic Update
The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, 1 but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. 2,3
The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,1 which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.
What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?
The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,2 Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,4 and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.3 Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.
Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),2 such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.4 The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 20234; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.2
What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?
During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.3 As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,6 whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.6 Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.5
What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?
As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.6 Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.
Final Thoughts
The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.
- Kennedy J, Arey S, Hopkins Z, et al. Dermatologist perceptions of teledermatology implementation and future use after COVID-19: demographics, barriers, and insights. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:595-597.
- US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS fact sheet: telehealth flexibilities and resources and the COVID-19 public health emergency. Published May 10, 2023. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/aboutnews/2023/05/10/hhs-fact-sheet-telehealth-flexibilities-resources-covid-19-public-health-emergency.html
- US Department of Health and Human Services. Licensing across state lines. Updated May 11, 2023. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://telehealth.hhs.gov/licensure/licensing-across-state-lines
- American Academy of Dermatology. Teledermatology and the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.aad.org/member/practice/telederm/covid-19
- American Medical Association. Licensure & Telehealth. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/issue-brief-licensure-telehealth.pdf
- Federal Communications Commission. Affordable Connectivity Program. Updated June 29, 2023. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/affordable-connectivity-program
- Tensen E, van der Heijden JP, Jaspers MWM, et al. Two decades of teledermatology: current status and integration in national healthcare systems. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2016;5:96-104.
The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, 1 but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. 2,3
The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,1 which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.
What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?
The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,2 Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,4 and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.3 Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.
Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),2 such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.4 The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 20234; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.2
What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?
During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.3 As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,6 whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.6 Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.5
What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?
As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.6 Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.
Final Thoughts
The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.
The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, 1 but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. 2,3
The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,1 which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.
What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?
The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,2 Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,4 and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.3 Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.
Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),2 such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.4 The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 20234; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.2
What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?
During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.3 As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,6 whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.6 Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.5
What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?
As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.6 Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.
Final Thoughts
The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.
- Kennedy J, Arey S, Hopkins Z, et al. Dermatologist perceptions of teledermatology implementation and future use after COVID-19: demographics, barriers, and insights. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:595-597.
- US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS fact sheet: telehealth flexibilities and resources and the COVID-19 public health emergency. Published May 10, 2023. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/aboutnews/2023/05/10/hhs-fact-sheet-telehealth-flexibilities-resources-covid-19-public-health-emergency.html
- US Department of Health and Human Services. Licensing across state lines. Updated May 11, 2023. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://telehealth.hhs.gov/licensure/licensing-across-state-lines
- American Academy of Dermatology. Teledermatology and the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.aad.org/member/practice/telederm/covid-19
- American Medical Association. Licensure & Telehealth. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/issue-brief-licensure-telehealth.pdf
- Federal Communications Commission. Affordable Connectivity Program. Updated June 29, 2023. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/affordable-connectivity-program
- Tensen E, van der Heijden JP, Jaspers MWM, et al. Two decades of teledermatology: current status and integration in national healthcare systems. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2016;5:96-104.
- Kennedy J, Arey S, Hopkins Z, et al. Dermatologist perceptions of teledermatology implementation and future use after COVID-19: demographics, barriers, and insights. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:595-597.
- US Department of Health and Human Services. HHS fact sheet: telehealth flexibilities and resources and the COVID-19 public health emergency. Published May 10, 2023. Accessed October 18, 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/aboutnews/2023/05/10/hhs-fact-sheet-telehealth-flexibilities-resources-covid-19-public-health-emergency.html
- US Department of Health and Human Services. Licensing across state lines. Updated May 11, 2023. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://telehealth.hhs.gov/licensure/licensing-across-state-lines
- American Academy of Dermatology. Teledermatology and the COVID-19 pandemic. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.aad.org/member/practice/telederm/covid-19
- American Medical Association. Licensure & Telehealth. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/issue-brief-licensure-telehealth.pdf
- Federal Communications Commission. Affordable Connectivity Program. Updated June 29, 2023. Accessed October 12, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/affordable-connectivity-program
- Tensen E, van der Heijden JP, Jaspers MWM, et al. Two decades of teledermatology: current status and integration in national healthcare systems. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2016;5:96-104.
Introduction
Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.
From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.
Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.
In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.
Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.
In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).
Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”
Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.
This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.
For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.
In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.
The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).
Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.
The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.
The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.
VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.
Acknowledgments
This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.
Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.
From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.
Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.
In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.
Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.
In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).
Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”
Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.
This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.
For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.
In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.
The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).
Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.
The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.
The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.
VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.
Acknowledgments
This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.
Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Like the flip of a light switch, the world in March 2020 went into lockdown. Suddenly the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was ever-present and everywhere. At a time when very little was certain, scientific inquiry—along with its related skills and disciplines—offered a much-needed pathway for navigating the virus’s myriad unknowns.
From the pandemic’s onset, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) made singular contributions to the advancement and acceleration of national and international research activity. This special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates how the VHA, through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), took advantage of its newly deployed enterprise strategy to meet the unprecedented demands of this public health emergency.
Launched in 2017, the ORD enterprise strategy enabled the VHA not only to capitalize on existing collaborations—both internal and external—but also move swiftly in forging new ones. Additionally, the strategy was key to leveraging unique VHA assets as the nation’s largest integrated health care system, including: (1) nationwide clinical trials infrastructure, including its longstanding Cooperative Studies Program; (2) a tightly integrated system of clinical care and research that serves as a ready platform for big data science, the world’s largest genomic database, and emergent capabilities; and (3) an established innovation ecosystem that worked with VA research to address rapidly changing circumstances.
In The VA Research Enterprise (p. S12), Garcia and colleagues demonstrate how the VHA pandemic response “arose from an enterprise strategy that was already in motion and aimed at identifying needs for supporting the clinical care mission, more rapidly leveraging resources, and coordinating research across the national VA health care system.” Thus, the VHA took a “model for a culture of cooperative research within the VA and with external groups” and translated it beyond the scope of clinical trials, which had been its foundation.
Led by Chief Research and Development Officer Rachel Ramoni, DMD, ScD, this strategy forged 121 VA medical centers conducting research into an integrated enterprise that could respond to needs for scientific evidence in a coordinated fashion, thereby translating research into practice for real impact on veterans. This approach built on relationships with not only scientific communities but also clinical and operational partners working within the VA to address the immediate pandemic-related needs.
In tandem with its physical infrastructure, the VA’s longstanding network of collaborators, physical infrastructure, and ability to develop new partnerships became drivers of success. Because of previous, ongoing, multisite clinical trials and observational studies, the VA had already partnered with numerous federal government agencies and industry groups and was able to quickly set up a VA COVID-19 clinical trial master protocol framework called the CURES (VA Coronavirus Research and Efficacy studies) network. The ORD enterprise strategy is noted by several other authors, including Caroff and colleagues, who show how the VA efforts to broaden partnerships prepandemic were critical to its participation in 7 large-scale COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials (p. S18).
Similarly, in discussing the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), Whitbourne and colleagues (p. S23) demonstrate how the VA research strategy and infrastructure were key to leveraging “unique MVP and VA electronic health record data to drive rapid scientific discovery and inform clinical operations.”
Launched in 2011, the MVP is one of the world’s largest genomic cohorts, with more than 985,000 veterans enrolled. MVP developers had the prescience to foresee how a robust genomic database could inform public health emergencies. Whitbourne and colleagues show the many ways the MVP facilitated the VHA COVID-19 response. By extending the MVP centralized recruitment and enrollment infrastructure, an ORD COVID-19 volunteer registry successfully registered 50,000 veterans interested in volunteering for clinical trials.
This tight integration between research and clinical care is one of the VHA’s greatest assets as a health care system. More than 60% of VA researchers are also clinicians who provide direct patient care. This enables VA physician-researchers to learn directly from veteran patients and quickly translate new findings into improved care. It also supported numerous capabilities that played a key role during the pandemic.
For example, in the article VA Big Data Science (p. S39), Young-Xu and colleagues note that the VA use of health care data proved medical research could be performed “quickly and judiciously.” Foundational to this research was a data sharing framework, electronic health record, and VA Corporate Data Warehouse that were accessible to all VA researchers. Researchers had access to clinical data and patient health records that allowed them to perform targeted, time-sensitive research. By building a cohort of 1,363,180 veterans who received ≥ 1 vaccine dose by March 7, 2021, VA researchers added significantly to our understanding of the real-world COVID-19 vaccine clinical performance.
In addition to leveraging existing capabilities, VHA clinicians and researchers created new ones in response. Krishnan and colleagues discuss the launch of 2 clinical and research consortiums focused on COVID-19 genomic surveillance (p. S44). SeqFORCE positioned the VHA to rapidly detect emergent variants and better inform the care of patients with COVID-19. SeqCURE focused on the broader study and trends of variants through sequencing.
The tightly integrated nature of VA care also supported the creation of a large-scale biorepository of specimens with accompanying clinical data to advance research and improve diagnostic and therapeutic research. Epstein and colleagues share the developmental history of the VA SHIELD biorepository, its structure, and its current and future contributions to research science (p. S48).
Finally, the same forward-learning culture which gave rise to the ORD enterprise strategy also resulted in an innovation ecosystem that was well established prior to March 2020. Now a firmly established portfolio within the VHA Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (OHIL), the VHA Innovation Ecosystem engages frontline clinicians in reimagining veteran health care. Iaquinto and colleagues discuss how the ecosystem’s preexisting partnerships were critical to addressing shortages in personal protective equipment and other vital resources (p. S52). The OHIL provided the quality system and manufacturing oversight and delivery of swabs for testing, while the ORD furnished research infrastructure and human subjects oversight. Together, these offices not only addressed the shortage by producing swabs but also validated the swabs’ safety and efficacy in the clinical setting.
The articles in this special issue chronicle how the VA quickly mobilized its considerable enterprise-wide resources—especially during the pandemic’s acute phases—to contribute to timely veteran, national, and global evidence about what interventions were effective, what factors were associated with better care and outcomes, and how to flip the switch back to a nonemergency response. As Emerson might have observed, the scientific value of these recent “bad times” did not go unnoticed by VHA learners. In addition to catalyzing opportunities that accelerated the VHA enterprise strategy, the pandemic strengthened existing partnerships, led to new ones, and yielded lessons learned. With variants of the virus continuing to circulate, the VHA continues to harness the lessons learned from the emergency response perspective of the pandemic in order to effectively meet and exceed our mission to serve veterans.
The 35 authors whose work is featured in this issue—and their 3665 colleagues across the VHA research enterprise—offer testament not only to the power of scientific inquiry but of dedication to the mission by the individuals whose lives and families were also impacted by the pandemic.
VA Research continues working to unravel the ongoing impact of COVID-19. As the nation observes an increase in cases again, the VA is ready and well positioned to help lead and address needs for this and other public health crises.
Acknowledgments
This special issue is dedicated to Mitchell (Mitch) Mirkin and his enduring legacy at VA Research, helping to make the contributions of VA Research known as broadly as possible. A superb writer and “editor’s editor,” Mitch had an outstanding ability to translate complex scientific findings into layman’s terms. From the start of the pandemic to his unexpected passing in 2022, Mitch was Acting Director of VA Research Communications. He was a key member of the VA Office of Research and Development COVID-19 research response team. His contributions included his work leading to the generation of this Issue.
Foreword: VA Research and COVID-19
Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.
This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.
Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.
As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.
By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.
Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.
The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.
Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.
Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.
The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.
Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.
This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.
Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.
As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.
By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.
Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.
The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.
Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.
Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.
The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.
Sylvester Norman, a 67-year-old Coast Guard veteran and retired day-care worker from Nashville, Tennessee, volunteered to participate in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veteran Program (MVP). He and all 4 of his brothers had experienced kidney illness. During the pandemic, Adriana Hung, MD, MPH, an MVP researcher and associate professor of nephrology at Vanderbilt University, noticed that a disproportionate number of Black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were dying of acute kidney failure. Dr. Hung used data from Norman and other Black veterans provided through the MVP to identify genetic variations in the APOL1 gene linked to kidney disease found in 1 of every 8 people of African descent. Her research proved that a COVID-19 viral infection can trigger these genes and drive a patient’s kidneys to go into failure. Thanks to her research and volunteers like Norman, a new drug targeting APOL1 may soon receive approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This is only one example of the life-saving work conducted by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the pandemic. On January 21, 2020, 1 day after the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the US, the VHA quickly activated its Emergency Management Coordination Cell (EMCC) under a unified command structure with round-the-clock operations to track the evolving risk and plan a response to this once-in-a-century pandemic. A few months later, and before the US declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the VHA research program sprang into action, preparing its community of investigators to address the emerging needs and challenges of the COVID-19 public health crisis. Three years later, although the federal COVID-19 public emergency is declared over, the VHA remains diligent in observing trends and conducting necessary research on the disease as case numbers rise and fall across time.
This special issue of Federal Practitioner showcases the many ways that the VHA successfully leveraged and rapidly mobilized its research enterprise capabilities as part of the national response to COVID-19 and continues to work in this area. As the virus rapidly spread across the country, the VHA research program, overseen by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and in partnership with other VHA offices, demonstrated the strength and agility that come from being part of a nationwide integrated health care system.
Historically, the VHA has been one of the nation’s leaders in translating medical breakthroughs to the treatment and care of veterans and the nation. Today, the VHA ensures that veterans have increased access to innovative health care solutions by promoting new medical research initiatives, training health care professionals, and developing community partnerships.
As this special issue of Federal Practitioner demonstrates, the VHA’s extraordinary research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was shaped by its ongoing transformation to a full-scale research enterprise; diversity of partnerships with academia, other federal agencies, and industry; extensive infrastructure for funding and quickly ramping up multisite clinical trials; and longstanding partnership with veterans, who volunteer to serve their country twice—first in uniform, and later by volunteering to participate in VA research.
By leveraging these and other assets, VHA investigators have conducted > 900 COVID-19 research projects across 83 VA medical centers, with nearly 3000 VA-affiliated papers published by mid-2023. We have also become a leader in long COVID, generating notable findings using our electronic health record data and filling in the picture with studies that include interviews with thousands of patients, examinations of blood markers, and exploration of the role of genetics. Along the way, the VA collaborated with federal partners, such as the US Department of Defense, by funding a longitudinal research cohort in which 2800 veterans are enrolled. Through this joint effort, researchers will learn more about the natural history and outcomes among veterans affected by COVID-19. This work continues as part of the VA commitment to the health and care of these veterans and nation as a whole.
Additionally, by partnering with veterans, the VA established a research volunteer registry. More than 58,000 veterans volunteered to be contacted to participate in studies if they were eligible. This effort was critical to the VA’s ability to contribute to the vaccine and other therapeutic trials that were seeking approval from the FDA for broader public use. This volunteerism by these veterans showed the nation that the VA is a valuable partner in times of need.
The VA research program remains tightly focused on understanding the long-term impacts of COVID-19. At the same time, the VA is committed to using lessons learned during the crisis in addressing high priorities in veterans’ health care. Among those priorities is fulfilling our mission under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 to improve care for veterans with military environmental exposures. Over the next few years, VA researchers will analyze health care and epidemiologic data to improve the identification and treatment of medical conditions potentially associated with toxic exposures. This work will include analyses of health trends of post-9/11 veterans, cancer rates among veterans, toxic exposure and mental health outcomes, and the health effects of jet fuels.
Our research program also will support the VA priority of hiring faster and more competitively. With many of the 3700 VA-funded principal investigators also serving as faculty at top universities, VA research programs position us to recruit the best and brightest professionals on the cutting edge of health care. These efforts work hand in hand with the clinical training the VA provides to 113,000 health professions trainees, creating a pipeline of clinicians and physician-researchers for the future. Further, these partnerships strengthen the VA’s ability to expand access by connecting veterans to the best, immediate care.
Finally, VA research will continue to be critical to our top clinical priority of preventing veteran suicide. This area of VA research covers a wide and critically important set of topics, such as the use of predictive modeling to determine veterans most at risk as well as studies on substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, among others.
The impressive collection of articles in this special issue provides a snapshot of the large-scale, all-hands approach the VHA adopted during the COVID-19 public health crisis. I am extremely proud of the work you are about to read.
Heart rate variability: Are we ignoring a harbinger of health?
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.
Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?
A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.
More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
What is HRV?
HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.
Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.
As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.
That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
Why monitor HRV?
But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.
Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.
The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.
To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.
I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.
A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.
Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.
My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.
Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.
Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.
Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.
I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.
So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.
I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.
George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upper respiratory infections: Viral testing in primary care
It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.
The patient
The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.
She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.
The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.
Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:
- Temperature: 37.5° C
- Pulse: 60 beats/min
- Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
- Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
- SpO2: 93% on room air
What information is most critical before deciding on management?
Your peers chose:
- The patient’s history of viral URIs
14%
- Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum
38%
- How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses
8%
- Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)
40%
Dr. Vega’s take
To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.
Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
Testing and treatment
Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.
What is the next best step in this patient’s management?
Your peers chose:
- Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir
7%
- Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir
14%
- Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results
34%
- Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results
45%
Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.
There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.
The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.
Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.
What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.
The patient
The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.
She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.
The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.
Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:
- Temperature: 37.5° C
- Pulse: 60 beats/min
- Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
- Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
- SpO2: 93% on room air
What information is most critical before deciding on management?
Your peers chose:
- The patient’s history of viral URIs
14%
- Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum
38%
- How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses
8%
- Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)
40%
Dr. Vega’s take
To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.
Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
Testing and treatment
Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.
What is the next best step in this patient’s management?
Your peers chose:
- Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir
7%
- Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir
14%
- Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results
34%
- Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results
45%
Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.
There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.
The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.
Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.
What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.
The patient
The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.
She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.
The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.
Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:
- Temperature: 37.5° C
- Pulse: 60 beats/min
- Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
- Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
- SpO2: 93% on room air
What information is most critical before deciding on management?
Your peers chose:
- The patient’s history of viral URIs
14%
- Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum
38%
- How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses
8%
- Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)
40%
Dr. Vega’s take
To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.
Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
Testing and treatment
Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.
What is the next best step in this patient’s management?
Your peers chose:
- Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir
7%
- Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir
14%
- Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results
34%
- Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results
45%
Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.
The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.
There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.
The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.
Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.
What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Skin in the Game: Inadequate Photoprotection Among Olympic Athletes
The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.
Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.1
Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.3 In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.4 Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.5
World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.6 In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.7 An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.8
Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.9 In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.10 Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.9
What can we learn from these findings?
First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.11
Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.12
- Zhang W, Zeng W, Jiang A, et al. Global, regional and national incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Cancer Med. 2021;10:4905-4922. doi:10.1002/cam4.4046
- De Luca JF, Adams BB, Yosipovitch G. Skin manifestations of athletes competing in the summer Olympics: what a sports medicine physician should know. Sports Med. 2012;42:399-413. doi:10.2165/11599050-000000000-00000
- Moehrle M. Outdoor sports and skin cancer. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26:12-15. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.10.001
- Rigel DS, Rigel EG, Rigel AC. Effects of altitude and latitude on ambient UVB radiation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40:114-116. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70542-6
- Harrison SC, Bergfeld WF. Ultraviolet light and skin cancer in athletes. Sports Health. 2009;1:335-340. doi:10.1177/19417381093338923
- Downs NJ, Axelsen T, Schouten P, et al. Biologically effective solar ultraviolet exposures and the potential skin cancer risk for individual gold medalists of the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. Temperature (Austin). 2019;7:89-108. doi:10.1080/23328940.2019.1581427
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Ponce-González JG, et al. Sun protection habits and sunburn in elite aquatics athletes: surfers, windsurfers and Olympic sailors. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:312-320. doi:10.1007/s13187-018-1466-x
- Moehrle M, Heinrich L, Schmid A, et al. Extreme UV exposure of professional cyclists. Dermatology. 2000;201:44-45. doi:10.1159/000018428
- Buljan M, Kolic´ M, Šitum M, et al. Do athletes practicing outdoors know and care enough about the importance of photoprotection? Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2020;28:41-42.
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Lagares-Franco C. Sun exposure during water sports: do elite athletes adequately protect their skin against skin cancer? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:800. doi:10.3390/ijerph18020800
- Tsai J, Chien AL. Photoprotection for skin of color. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:195-205. doi:10.1007/s40257-021-00670-z
- Ally MS, Swetter SM, Hirotsu KE, et al. Promoting sunscreen use and sun-protective practices in NCAA athletes: impact of SUNSPORT educational intervention for student-athletes, athletic trainers, and coaches. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:289-292.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.050
The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.
Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.1
Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.3 In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.4 Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.5
World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.6 In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.7 An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.8
Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.9 In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.10 Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.9
What can we learn from these findings?
First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.11
Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.12
The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.
Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.1
Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.3 In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.4 Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.5
World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.6 In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.7 An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.8
Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.9 In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.10 Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.9
What can we learn from these findings?
First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.11
Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.12
- Zhang W, Zeng W, Jiang A, et al. Global, regional and national incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Cancer Med. 2021;10:4905-4922. doi:10.1002/cam4.4046
- De Luca JF, Adams BB, Yosipovitch G. Skin manifestations of athletes competing in the summer Olympics: what a sports medicine physician should know. Sports Med. 2012;42:399-413. doi:10.2165/11599050-000000000-00000
- Moehrle M. Outdoor sports and skin cancer. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26:12-15. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.10.001
- Rigel DS, Rigel EG, Rigel AC. Effects of altitude and latitude on ambient UVB radiation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40:114-116. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70542-6
- Harrison SC, Bergfeld WF. Ultraviolet light and skin cancer in athletes. Sports Health. 2009;1:335-340. doi:10.1177/19417381093338923
- Downs NJ, Axelsen T, Schouten P, et al. Biologically effective solar ultraviolet exposures and the potential skin cancer risk for individual gold medalists of the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. Temperature (Austin). 2019;7:89-108. doi:10.1080/23328940.2019.1581427
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Ponce-González JG, et al. Sun protection habits and sunburn in elite aquatics athletes: surfers, windsurfers and Olympic sailors. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:312-320. doi:10.1007/s13187-018-1466-x
- Moehrle M, Heinrich L, Schmid A, et al. Extreme UV exposure of professional cyclists. Dermatology. 2000;201:44-45. doi:10.1159/000018428
- Buljan M, Kolic´ M, Šitum M, et al. Do athletes practicing outdoors know and care enough about the importance of photoprotection? Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2020;28:41-42.
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Lagares-Franco C. Sun exposure during water sports: do elite athletes adequately protect their skin against skin cancer? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:800. doi:10.3390/ijerph18020800
- Tsai J, Chien AL. Photoprotection for skin of color. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:195-205. doi:10.1007/s40257-021-00670-z
- Ally MS, Swetter SM, Hirotsu KE, et al. Promoting sunscreen use and sun-protective practices in NCAA athletes: impact of SUNSPORT educational intervention for student-athletes, athletic trainers, and coaches. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:289-292.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.050
- Zhang W, Zeng W, Jiang A, et al. Global, regional and national incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Cancer Med. 2021;10:4905-4922. doi:10.1002/cam4.4046
- De Luca JF, Adams BB, Yosipovitch G. Skin manifestations of athletes competing in the summer Olympics: what a sports medicine physician should know. Sports Med. 2012;42:399-413. doi:10.2165/11599050-000000000-00000
- Moehrle M. Outdoor sports and skin cancer. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26:12-15. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2007.10.001
- Rigel DS, Rigel EG, Rigel AC. Effects of altitude and latitude on ambient UVB radiation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40:114-116. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70542-6
- Harrison SC, Bergfeld WF. Ultraviolet light and skin cancer in athletes. Sports Health. 2009;1:335-340. doi:10.1177/19417381093338923
- Downs NJ, Axelsen T, Schouten P, et al. Biologically effective solar ultraviolet exposures and the potential skin cancer risk for individual gold medalists of the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympic Games. Temperature (Austin). 2019;7:89-108. doi:10.1080/23328940.2019.1581427
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Ponce-González JG, et al. Sun protection habits and sunburn in elite aquatics athletes: surfers, windsurfers and Olympic sailors. J Cancer Educ. 2020;35:312-320. doi:10.1007/s13187-018-1466-x
- Moehrle M, Heinrich L, Schmid A, et al. Extreme UV exposure of professional cyclists. Dermatology. 2000;201:44-45. doi:10.1159/000018428
- Buljan M, Kolic´ M, Šitum M, et al. Do athletes practicing outdoors know and care enough about the importance of photoprotection? Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2020;28:41-42.
- De Castro-Maqueda G, Gutierrez-Manzanedo JV, Lagares-Franco C. Sun exposure during water sports: do elite athletes adequately protect their skin against skin cancer? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:800. doi:10.3390/ijerph18020800
- Tsai J, Chien AL. Photoprotection for skin of color. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022;23:195-205. doi:10.1007/s40257-021-00670-z
- Ally MS, Swetter SM, Hirotsu KE, et al. Promoting sunscreen use and sun-protective practices in NCAA athletes: impact of SUNSPORT educational intervention for student-athletes, athletic trainers, and coaches. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78:289-292.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.08.050
Practice Points
- Providers should further investigate how patients spend their time outside to assess cancer risk and appropriately guide patients.
- Many athletes typically train for hours outside; therefore, these patients should be educated on the importance of sunscreen reapplication and protective clothing.
Q&A: Cancer screening in older patients – who to screen and when to stop
More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.
Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?
Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.
We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.
But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?
A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.
However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?
A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.
Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?
A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.
For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.
I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?
A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?
A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *
Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?
A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.
The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.
There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?
A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?
A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.
There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.
My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.
*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.
Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?
Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.
We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.
But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?
A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.
However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?
A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.
Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?
A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.
For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.
I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?
A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?
A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *
Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?
A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.
The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.
There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?
A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?
A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.
There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.
My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.
*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.
Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?
Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.
We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.
But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?
A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.
However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?
A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.
Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?
A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.
For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.
I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?
A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?
A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *
Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?
A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.
The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.
There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?
A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?
A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.
There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.
My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.
*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
This drug works, but wait till you hear what’s in it
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.
A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.
It’s easier to build trust when you’re talking about a medication rather than a computer program. When a new blood pressure drug comes out that lowers blood pressure, importantly, we know why it lowers blood pressure. Every drug has a mechanism of action and, for most of the drugs in our arsenal, we know what that mechanism is.
But what if there were a drug – or better yet, a treatment – that worked? And I can honestly say we have no idea how it works. That’s what came across my desk today in what I believe is the largest, most rigorous trial of a traditional Chinese medication in history.
“Traditional Chinese medicine” is an omnibus term that refers to a class of therapies and health practices that are fundamentally different from how we practice medicine in the West.
It’s a highly personalized practice, with practitioners using often esoteric means to choose what substance to give what patient. That personalization makes traditional Chinese medicine nearly impossible to study in the typical randomized trial framework because treatments are not chosen solely on the basis of disease states.
The lack of scientific rigor in traditional Chinese medicine means that it is rife with practices and beliefs that can legitimately be called pseudoscience. As a nephrologist who has treated someone for “Chinese herb nephropathy,” I can tell you that some of the practices may be actively harmful.
But that doesn’t mean there is nothing there. I do not subscribe to the “argument from antiquity” – the idea that because something has been done for a long time it must be correct. But at the same time, traditional and non–science-based medicine practices could still identify therapies that work.
And with that, let me introduce you to Tongxinluo. Tongxinluo literally means “to open the network of the heart,” and it is a substance that has been used for centuries by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to treat angina but was approved by the Chinese state medicine agency for use in 1996.
Like many traditional Chinese medicine preparations, Tongxinluo is not a single chemical – far from it. It is a powder made from a variety of plant and insect parts, as you can see here.
I can’t imagine running a trial of this concoction in the United States; I just don’t see an institutional review board signing off, given the ingredient list.
But let’s set that aside and talk about the study itself.
While I don’t have access to any primary data, the write-up of the study suggests that it was highly rigorous. Chinese researchers randomized 3,797 patients with ST-elevation MI to take Tongxinluo – four capsules, three times a day for 12 months – or matching placebo. The placebo was designed to look just like the Tongxinluo capsules and, if the capsules were opened, to smell like them as well.
Researchers and participants were blinded, and the statistical analysis was done both by the primary team and an independent research agency, also in China.
And the results were pretty good. The primary outcome, 30-day major cardiovascular and cerebral events, were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the placebo group.
One-year outcomes were similarly good; 8.3% of the placebo group suffered a major cardiovascular or cerebral event in that time frame, compared with 5.3% of the Tongxinluo group. In short, if this were a pure chemical compound from a major pharmaceutical company, well, you might be seeing a new treatment for heart attack – and a boost in stock price.
But there are some issues here, generalizability being a big one. This study was done entirely in China, so its applicability to a more diverse population is unclear. Moreover, the quality of post-MI care in this study is quite a bit worse than what we’d see here in the United States, with just over 50% of patients being discharged on a beta-blocker, for example.
But issues of generalizability and potentially substandard supplementary treatments are the usual reasons we worry about new medication trials. And those concerns seem to pale before the big one I have here which is, you know – we don’t know why this works.
Is it the extract of leech in the preparation perhaps thinning the blood a bit? Or is it the antioxidants in the ginseng, or something from the Pacific centipede or the sandalwood?
This trial doesn’t read to me as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine but rather as an example of missed opportunity. More rigorous scientific study over the centuries that Tongxinluo has been used could have identified one, or perhaps more, compounds with strong therapeutic potential.
Purity of medical substances is incredibly important. Pure substances have predictable effects and side effects. Pure substances interact with other treatments we give patients in predictable ways. Pure substances can be quantified for purity by third parties, they can be manufactured according to accepted standards, and they can be assessed for adulteration. In short, pure substances pose less risk.
Now, I know that may come off as particularly sterile. Some people will feel that a “natural” substance has some inherent benefit over pure compounds. And, of course, there is something soothing about imagining a traditional preparation handed down over centuries, being prepared with care by a single practitioner, in contrast to the sterile industrial processes of a for-profit pharmaceutical company. I get it. But natural is not the same as safe. I am glad I have access to purified aspirin and don’t have to chew willow bark. I like my pure penicillin and am glad I don’t have to make a mold slurry to treat a bacterial infection.
I applaud the researchers for subjecting Tongxinluo to the rigor of a well-designed trial. They have generated data that are incredibly exciting, but not because we have a new treatment for ST-elevation MI on our hands; it’s because we have a map to a new treatment. The next big thing in heart attack care is not the mixture that is Tongxinluo, but it might be in the mixture.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.
A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.
It’s easier to build trust when you’re talking about a medication rather than a computer program. When a new blood pressure drug comes out that lowers blood pressure, importantly, we know why it lowers blood pressure. Every drug has a mechanism of action and, for most of the drugs in our arsenal, we know what that mechanism is.
But what if there were a drug – or better yet, a treatment – that worked? And I can honestly say we have no idea how it works. That’s what came across my desk today in what I believe is the largest, most rigorous trial of a traditional Chinese medication in history.
“Traditional Chinese medicine” is an omnibus term that refers to a class of therapies and health practices that are fundamentally different from how we practice medicine in the West.
It’s a highly personalized practice, with practitioners using often esoteric means to choose what substance to give what patient. That personalization makes traditional Chinese medicine nearly impossible to study in the typical randomized trial framework because treatments are not chosen solely on the basis of disease states.
The lack of scientific rigor in traditional Chinese medicine means that it is rife with practices and beliefs that can legitimately be called pseudoscience. As a nephrologist who has treated someone for “Chinese herb nephropathy,” I can tell you that some of the practices may be actively harmful.
But that doesn’t mean there is nothing there. I do not subscribe to the “argument from antiquity” – the idea that because something has been done for a long time it must be correct. But at the same time, traditional and non–science-based medicine practices could still identify therapies that work.
And with that, let me introduce you to Tongxinluo. Tongxinluo literally means “to open the network of the heart,” and it is a substance that has been used for centuries by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to treat angina but was approved by the Chinese state medicine agency for use in 1996.
Like many traditional Chinese medicine preparations, Tongxinluo is not a single chemical – far from it. It is a powder made from a variety of plant and insect parts, as you can see here.
I can’t imagine running a trial of this concoction in the United States; I just don’t see an institutional review board signing off, given the ingredient list.
But let’s set that aside and talk about the study itself.
While I don’t have access to any primary data, the write-up of the study suggests that it was highly rigorous. Chinese researchers randomized 3,797 patients with ST-elevation MI to take Tongxinluo – four capsules, three times a day for 12 months – or matching placebo. The placebo was designed to look just like the Tongxinluo capsules and, if the capsules were opened, to smell like them as well.
Researchers and participants were blinded, and the statistical analysis was done both by the primary team and an independent research agency, also in China.
And the results were pretty good. The primary outcome, 30-day major cardiovascular and cerebral events, were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the placebo group.
One-year outcomes were similarly good; 8.3% of the placebo group suffered a major cardiovascular or cerebral event in that time frame, compared with 5.3% of the Tongxinluo group. In short, if this were a pure chemical compound from a major pharmaceutical company, well, you might be seeing a new treatment for heart attack – and a boost in stock price.
But there are some issues here, generalizability being a big one. This study was done entirely in China, so its applicability to a more diverse population is unclear. Moreover, the quality of post-MI care in this study is quite a bit worse than what we’d see here in the United States, with just over 50% of patients being discharged on a beta-blocker, for example.
But issues of generalizability and potentially substandard supplementary treatments are the usual reasons we worry about new medication trials. And those concerns seem to pale before the big one I have here which is, you know – we don’t know why this works.
Is it the extract of leech in the preparation perhaps thinning the blood a bit? Or is it the antioxidants in the ginseng, or something from the Pacific centipede or the sandalwood?
This trial doesn’t read to me as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine but rather as an example of missed opportunity. More rigorous scientific study over the centuries that Tongxinluo has been used could have identified one, or perhaps more, compounds with strong therapeutic potential.
Purity of medical substances is incredibly important. Pure substances have predictable effects and side effects. Pure substances interact with other treatments we give patients in predictable ways. Pure substances can be quantified for purity by third parties, they can be manufactured according to accepted standards, and they can be assessed for adulteration. In short, pure substances pose less risk.
Now, I know that may come off as particularly sterile. Some people will feel that a “natural” substance has some inherent benefit over pure compounds. And, of course, there is something soothing about imagining a traditional preparation handed down over centuries, being prepared with care by a single practitioner, in contrast to the sterile industrial processes of a for-profit pharmaceutical company. I get it. But natural is not the same as safe. I am glad I have access to purified aspirin and don’t have to chew willow bark. I like my pure penicillin and am glad I don’t have to make a mold slurry to treat a bacterial infection.
I applaud the researchers for subjecting Tongxinluo to the rigor of a well-designed trial. They have generated data that are incredibly exciting, but not because we have a new treatment for ST-elevation MI on our hands; it’s because we have a map to a new treatment. The next big thing in heart attack care is not the mixture that is Tongxinluo, but it might be in the mixture.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
As some of you may know, I do a fair amount of clinical research developing and evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models, particularly machine learning algorithms that predict certain outcomes.
A thorny issue that comes up as algorithms have gotten more complicated is “explainability.” The problem is that AI can be a black box. Even if you have a model that is very accurate at predicting death, clinicians don’t trust it unless you can explain how it makes its predictions – how it works. “It just works” is not good enough to build trust.
It’s easier to build trust when you’re talking about a medication rather than a computer program. When a new blood pressure drug comes out that lowers blood pressure, importantly, we know why it lowers blood pressure. Every drug has a mechanism of action and, for most of the drugs in our arsenal, we know what that mechanism is.
But what if there were a drug – or better yet, a treatment – that worked? And I can honestly say we have no idea how it works. That’s what came across my desk today in what I believe is the largest, most rigorous trial of a traditional Chinese medication in history.
“Traditional Chinese medicine” is an omnibus term that refers to a class of therapies and health practices that are fundamentally different from how we practice medicine in the West.
It’s a highly personalized practice, with practitioners using often esoteric means to choose what substance to give what patient. That personalization makes traditional Chinese medicine nearly impossible to study in the typical randomized trial framework because treatments are not chosen solely on the basis of disease states.
The lack of scientific rigor in traditional Chinese medicine means that it is rife with practices and beliefs that can legitimately be called pseudoscience. As a nephrologist who has treated someone for “Chinese herb nephropathy,” I can tell you that some of the practices may be actively harmful.
But that doesn’t mean there is nothing there. I do not subscribe to the “argument from antiquity” – the idea that because something has been done for a long time it must be correct. But at the same time, traditional and non–science-based medicine practices could still identify therapies that work.
And with that, let me introduce you to Tongxinluo. Tongxinluo literally means “to open the network of the heart,” and it is a substance that has been used for centuries by traditional Chinese medicine practitioners to treat angina but was approved by the Chinese state medicine agency for use in 1996.
Like many traditional Chinese medicine preparations, Tongxinluo is not a single chemical – far from it. It is a powder made from a variety of plant and insect parts, as you can see here.
I can’t imagine running a trial of this concoction in the United States; I just don’t see an institutional review board signing off, given the ingredient list.
But let’s set that aside and talk about the study itself.
While I don’t have access to any primary data, the write-up of the study suggests that it was highly rigorous. Chinese researchers randomized 3,797 patients with ST-elevation MI to take Tongxinluo – four capsules, three times a day for 12 months – or matching placebo. The placebo was designed to look just like the Tongxinluo capsules and, if the capsules were opened, to smell like them as well.
Researchers and participants were blinded, and the statistical analysis was done both by the primary team and an independent research agency, also in China.
And the results were pretty good. The primary outcome, 30-day major cardiovascular and cerebral events, were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the placebo group.
One-year outcomes were similarly good; 8.3% of the placebo group suffered a major cardiovascular or cerebral event in that time frame, compared with 5.3% of the Tongxinluo group. In short, if this were a pure chemical compound from a major pharmaceutical company, well, you might be seeing a new treatment for heart attack – and a boost in stock price.
But there are some issues here, generalizability being a big one. This study was done entirely in China, so its applicability to a more diverse population is unclear. Moreover, the quality of post-MI care in this study is quite a bit worse than what we’d see here in the United States, with just over 50% of patients being discharged on a beta-blocker, for example.
But issues of generalizability and potentially substandard supplementary treatments are the usual reasons we worry about new medication trials. And those concerns seem to pale before the big one I have here which is, you know – we don’t know why this works.
Is it the extract of leech in the preparation perhaps thinning the blood a bit? Or is it the antioxidants in the ginseng, or something from the Pacific centipede or the sandalwood?
This trial doesn’t read to me as a vindication of traditional Chinese medicine but rather as an example of missed opportunity. More rigorous scientific study over the centuries that Tongxinluo has been used could have identified one, or perhaps more, compounds with strong therapeutic potential.
Purity of medical substances is incredibly important. Pure substances have predictable effects and side effects. Pure substances interact with other treatments we give patients in predictable ways. Pure substances can be quantified for purity by third parties, they can be manufactured according to accepted standards, and they can be assessed for adulteration. In short, pure substances pose less risk.
Now, I know that may come off as particularly sterile. Some people will feel that a “natural” substance has some inherent benefit over pure compounds. And, of course, there is something soothing about imagining a traditional preparation handed down over centuries, being prepared with care by a single practitioner, in contrast to the sterile industrial processes of a for-profit pharmaceutical company. I get it. But natural is not the same as safe. I am glad I have access to purified aspirin and don’t have to chew willow bark. I like my pure penicillin and am glad I don’t have to make a mold slurry to treat a bacterial infection.
I applaud the researchers for subjecting Tongxinluo to the rigor of a well-designed trial. They have generated data that are incredibly exciting, but not because we have a new treatment for ST-elevation MI on our hands; it’s because we have a map to a new treatment. The next big thing in heart attack care is not the mixture that is Tongxinluo, but it might be in the mixture.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, “How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t,” is available now.