MDedge Infectious Disease

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mRESVIA (mRNA-1345, Moderna), a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The mRNA vaccine is approved for adults aged 60 years or older to prevent lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV. It is the third vaccine to be approved for RSV in the past year after Arexvy from GSK and Abrysvo by Pfizer.

“The FDA approval of our second product, mRESVIA, builds on the strength and versatility of our mRNA platform,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a news release. “mRESVIA protects older adults from the severe outcomes of RSV infection. This approval is also the first time an mRNA vaccine has been approved for a disease other than COVID-19.”

mRESVIA is a single-dose vaccine available in prefilled syringes, which the company says are designed to maximize ease of administration, saving vaccinators’ time, and reducing the risk for administrative errors.

The approval is based on the positive results from the phase 3 ConquerRSV clinical trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2023. The study, conducted in approximately 37,000 adults aged 60 years or older in 22 countries, found a vaccine efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease of 83.7% after a median 3.7 months of follow-up.

An additional longer-term analysis showed continued protection over 8.6 months median follow-up. No serious safety concerns were identified. The most reported adverse reactions were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

Moderna has also filed for approval in multiple markets around the world, and says it expects mRESVIA to be available in the United States in time for the 2024-2025 respiratory virus season.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mRESVIA (mRNA-1345, Moderna), a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The mRNA vaccine is approved for adults aged 60 years or older to prevent lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV. It is the third vaccine to be approved for RSV in the past year after Arexvy from GSK and Abrysvo by Pfizer.

“The FDA approval of our second product, mRESVIA, builds on the strength and versatility of our mRNA platform,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a news release. “mRESVIA protects older adults from the severe outcomes of RSV infection. This approval is also the first time an mRNA vaccine has been approved for a disease other than COVID-19.”

mRESVIA is a single-dose vaccine available in prefilled syringes, which the company says are designed to maximize ease of administration, saving vaccinators’ time, and reducing the risk for administrative errors.

The approval is based on the positive results from the phase 3 ConquerRSV clinical trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2023. The study, conducted in approximately 37,000 adults aged 60 years or older in 22 countries, found a vaccine efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease of 83.7% after a median 3.7 months of follow-up.

An additional longer-term analysis showed continued protection over 8.6 months median follow-up. No serious safety concerns were identified. The most reported adverse reactions were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

Moderna has also filed for approval in multiple markets around the world, and says it expects mRESVIA to be available in the United States in time for the 2024-2025 respiratory virus season.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mRESVIA (mRNA-1345, Moderna), a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The mRNA vaccine is approved for adults aged 60 years or older to prevent lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV. It is the third vaccine to be approved for RSV in the past year after Arexvy from GSK and Abrysvo by Pfizer.

“The FDA approval of our second product, mRESVIA, builds on the strength and versatility of our mRNA platform,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a news release. “mRESVIA protects older adults from the severe outcomes of RSV infection. This approval is also the first time an mRNA vaccine has been approved for a disease other than COVID-19.”

mRESVIA is a single-dose vaccine available in prefilled syringes, which the company says are designed to maximize ease of administration, saving vaccinators’ time, and reducing the risk for administrative errors.

The approval is based on the positive results from the phase 3 ConquerRSV clinical trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2023. The study, conducted in approximately 37,000 adults aged 60 years or older in 22 countries, found a vaccine efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease of 83.7% after a median 3.7 months of follow-up.

An additional longer-term analysis showed continued protection over 8.6 months median follow-up. No serious safety concerns were identified. The most reported adverse reactions were injection site pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

Moderna has also filed for approval in multiple markets around the world, and says it expects mRESVIA to be available in the United States in time for the 2024-2025 respiratory virus season.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

The studies received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The principle of resilience and survival is crucial for medically significant fungi. These microorganisms are far from creating the postapocalyptic scenario depicted in TV series like The Last of Us, and much work is necessary to learn more about them. Accurate statistics on fungal infections, accompanied by clinical histories, simple laboratory tests, new antifungals, and a necessary One Health approach are lacking. 

The entomopathogenic fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis was made notorious by the TV series, but for now, it only manages to control the brains of some ants at will. Luckily, there are no signs that fungi affecting humans are inclined to create zombies.

What is clear is that the world belongs to the kingdom of fungi and that fungi are everywhere. There are already close to 150,000 described species, but millions remain to be discovered. They abound in decomposing organic matter, soil, or animal excrement, including that of bats and pigeons. Some fungi have even managed to find a home in hospitals. Lastly, we must not forget those that establish themselves in the human microbiome.

Given such diversity, it is legitimate to ask whether any of them could be capable of generating new pandemics. Could the forgotten Cryptococcus neoformans, Aspergillus fumigatus, or Histoplasma species, among others, trigger new health emergencies on the scale of the one generated by SARS-CoV-2?

We cannot forget that a coronavirus has already confirmed that reality can surpass fiction. However, Edith Sánchez Paredes, a biologist, doctor in biomedical sciences, and specialist in medical mycology, provided a reassuring response to Medscape Spanish Edition on this point.

“That would be very difficult to see because the way fungal infections are acquired is not from person to person, in most cases,” said Dr. Sánchez Paredes, from the Mycology Unit of the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Close to 300 species have already been classified as pathogenic in humans. Although the numbers are not precise and are increasing, it is estimated that around 1,500,000 people worldwide die each year of systemic fungal infections.

“However, it is important to emphasize that establishment of an infection depends not only on the causal agent. A crucial factor is the host, in this case, the human. Generally, these types of infections will develop in individuals with some deficiency in their immune system. The more deficient the immune response, the more likely a fungal infection may occur,” stated Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

The possibility of a pandemic like the one experienced with SARS-CoV-2 in the short term is remote, but the threat posed by fungal infections persists.

In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined a priority list of pathogenic fungi, with the aim of guiding actions to control them. It is mentioned there that invasive fungal diseases are on the rise worldwide, particularly in immunocompromised populations.

“Despite the growing concern, fungal infections receive very little attention and resources, leading to a paucity of quality data on fungal disease distribution and antifungal resistance patterns. Consequently, it is impossible to estimate their exact burden,” as stated in the document.

In line with this, an article published in Mycoses in 2022 concluded that fungal infections are neglected diseases in Latin America. Among other difficulties, deficiencies in access to tests such as polymerase chain reaction or serum detection of beta-1,3-D-glucan have been reported there.

In terms of treatments, most countries encounter problems with access to liposomal amphotericin B and new azoles, such as posaconazole and isavuconazole.

“Unfortunately, in Latin America, we suffer from a poor infrastructure for diagnosing fungal infections; likewise, we have limited access to antifungals available in the global market. What’s more, we lack reliable data on the epidemiology of fungal infections in the region, so many times governments are unaware of the true extent of the problem,” said Rogelio de Jesús Treviño Rangel, PhD, a medical microbiologist and expert in clinical mycology, professor, and researcher at the Faculty of Medicine of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León in Mexico.
 

Need for More Medical Mycology Training

Dr. Fernando Messina is a medical mycologist with the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has noted an increase in the number of cases of cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and aspergillosis in his daily practice.

“Particularly, pulmonary aspergillosis is steadily increasing. This is because many patients have structural lung alterations that favor the appearance of this mycosis. This is related to the increase in cases of tuberculosis and the rise in life expectancy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other pulmonary or systemic diseases,” Dr. Messina stated.

For Dr. Messina, the main obstacle in current clinical practice is the low level of awareness among nonspecialist physicians regarding the presence of systemic fungal infections, and because these infections are more common than realized, it is vital to consider fungal etiology before starting empirical antibiotic therapy.

“Health professionals usually do not think about mycoses because mycology occupies a very small space in medical education at universities. As the Venezuelan mycologist Gioconda Cunto de San Blas once said, ‘Mycology is the Cinderella of microbiology.’ To change this, we need to give more space to mycoses in undergraduate and postgraduate studies,” Dr. Messina asserted.

He added, “The main challenge is to train professionals with an emphasis on the clinical interpretation of cases. Current medicine has a strong trend toward molecular biology and the use of rapid diagnostic methods, without considering the clinical symptoms or the patient’s history. Determinations are very useful, but it is necessary to interpret the results.”

Dr. Messina sees it as unlikely in the short term for a pandemic to be caused by fungi, but if it were to occur, he believes it would happen in healthcare systems in regions that are not prepared in terms of infrastructure. However, as seen in the health emergency resulting from SARS-CoV-2, he thinks the impact would be mitigated by the performance of healthcare professionals.

“In general, we have the ability to adapt to any adverse situation or change — although it is clear that we need more doctors, biochemists, and microbiologists trained in mycology,” emphasized Dr. Messina.

More than 40 interns pass through Muñiz Hospital each year. They are doctors and biochemists from Argentina, other countries in the region, or even Europe, seeking to enhance their training in mycology. Regarding fungal infection laboratory work, the interest lies in learning to use traditional techniques and innovative molecular methods.

“Rapid diagnostic methods, especially the detection of circulating antigens, have marked a change in the prognosis of deep mycosis in immunocompromised hosts. The possibility of screening and monitoring in this group of patients is very important and has a great benefit,” said Gabriela Santiso, PhD, a biochemist and head of the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital.

According to Dr. Santiso, the current landscape includes the ability to identify genus and species, which can help in understanding resistance to antifungals. Furthermore, conducting sensitivity tests to these drugs, using standardized commercial methods, also provides timely information for treatment.

But Dr. Santiso warns that Latin America is a vast region with great disparity in human and technological resources. Although most countries in the region have networks facilitating access to timely diagnosis, resources are generally more available in major urban centers.

This often clashes with the epidemiology of most fungal infections. “Let’s not forget that many fungal pathologies affect low-income people who have difficulties accessing health centers, which sometimes turns them into chronic diseases that are hard to treat,” Dr. Santiso pointed out.

In mycology laboratories, the biggest cost is incurred by new diagnostic tests, such as those allowing molecular identification. Conventional methods are not usually expensive, but they require time and effort to train human resources to handle them.

Because new methodologies are not always available or easily accessible throughout the region, Dr. Santiso recommended not neglecting traditional mycological techniques. “Molecular methods, rapid diagnostic methods, and conventional mycology techniques are complementary and not mutually exclusive tests. Continuous training and updating are needed in this area,” she emphasized.
 

Why Are Resistant Fungal Infections Becoming Increasingly Common?

The first barrier for fungi to cause infection in humans is body temperature; most of them cannot withstand 37 °C. However, they also struggle to evade the immune response that is activated when they try to enter the body. 

“We are normally exposed to many of these fungi, almost all the time, but if our immune system is adequate, it may not go beyond a mild infection, in most cases subclinical, which will resolve quickly,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes stated.

However, according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes, if the immune response is weak, “the fungus will have no trouble establishing itself in our organs. Some are even part of our microbiota, such as Candida albicans, which in the face of an imbalance or immunocompromise, can lead to serious infections.”

It is clear that the population at risk for immunosuppression has increased. According to the WHO, this is due to the high prevalence of such diseases as tuberculosis, cancer, and HIV infection, among others.

But the WHO also believes that the increase in fungal infections is related to greater population access to critical care units, invasive procedures, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy treatments.

Furthermore, factors related to the fungus itself and the environment play a role. “These organisms have enzymes, proteins, and other molecules that allow them to survive in the environment in which they normally inhabit. When they face a new and stressful one, they must express other molecules that will allow them to survive. All of this helps them evade elements of the immune system, antifungals, and, of course, body temperature,” according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

It is possible that climate change is also behind the noticeable increase in fungal infections and that this crisis may have an even greater impact in the future. The temperature of the environment has increased, and fungi will have to adapt to the planet’s temperature, to the point where body temperature may no longer be a significant barrier for them.

Environmental changes would also be responsible for modifications in the distribution of endemic mycoses, and it is believed that fungi will more frequently find new ecological niches, be able to survive in other environments, and alter distribution zones.

This is what is happening between Mexico and the United States with coccidioidomycosis, or valley fever. “We will begin to see cases of some mycoses where they were not normally seen, so we will have to conduct more studies to confirm that the fungus is inhabiting these new areas or is simply appearing in new sites owing to migration and the great mobility of populations,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes said.

Finally, exposure to environmental factors would partly be responsible for the increasing resistance to first-line antifungals observed in these microorganisms. This seems to be the case with A. fumigatus when exposed to azoles used as fungicides in agriculture.
 

One Health in Fungal Infections

The increasing resistance to antifungals is a clear testament that human, animal, and environmental health are interconnected. This is why a multidisciplinary approach that adopts the perspective of One Health is necessary for its management.

“The use of fungicides in agriculture, structurally similar to the azoles used in clinics, generates resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus found in the environment. These fungi in humans can be associated with infections that do not respond to first-line treatment,” explained Carlos Arturo Álvarez, an infectious diseases physician and professor at the Faculty of Medicine at the National University of Colombia.

According to Dr. Álvarez, the approach to control them should not only focus on the search for diagnostic methods that allow early detection of antifungal resistance or research on new antifungal treatments. He believes that progress must also be made with strategies that allow for the proper use of antifungals in agriculture.

“Unfortunately, the One Health approach is not yet well implemented in the region, and in my view, there is a lack of articulation in the different sectors. That is, there is a need for true coordination between government offices of agriculture, animal and human health, academia, and international organizations. This is not happening yet, and I believe we are in the initial stage of visibility,” Dr. Álvarez opined.

Veterinary public health is another pillar of the aforementioned approach. For various reasons, animals experience a higher frequency of fungal infections. A few carry and transmit true zoonoses that affect human health, but most often, animals act only as sentinels indicating a potential source of transmission.

Carolina Segundo Zaragoza, PhD, has worked in veterinary mycology for 30 years. She currently heads the veterinary mycology laboratory at the Animal Production Teaching, Research, and Extension Center in Altiplano, under the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Because she has frequent contact with specialists in human mycology, during her professional career she has received several patient consultations, most of which were for cutaneous mycoses.

“They detect some dermatomycosis and realize that the common factor is owning a companion animal or a production animal with which the patient has contact. Both animals and humans present the same type of lesions, and then comes the question: Who infected whom? I remind them that the main source of infection is the soil and that animals should not be blamed in the first instance,” Dr. Segundo Zaragoza clarified.

She is currently collaborating on a research project analyzing the presence of Coccidioides immitis in the soil. This pathogen is responsible for coccidioidomycosis in dogs and humans, and she sees with satisfaction how these types of initiatives, which include some components of the One Health vision, are becoming more common in Mexico.

“Fortunately, human mycologists are increasingly providing more space for the dissemination of veterinary mycology. So I have had the opportunity to be invited to different forums on medical mycology to present the clinical cases we can have in animals and talk about the research projects we carry out. I have more and more opportunities to conduct joint research with human mycologists and veterinary doctors,” she said.

Dr. Segundo Zaragoza believes that to better implement the One Health vision, standardizing the criteria for detecting, diagnosing, and treating mycoses is necessary. She considers that teamwork will be key to achieving the common goal of safeguarding the well-being and health of humans and animals.
 

Alarms Sound for Candida auris

The WHO included the yeast Candida auris in its group of pathogens with critical priority, and since 2009, it has raised alarm owing to the ease with which it grows in hospitals. In that setting, C auris is known for its high transmissibility, its ability to cause outbreaks, and the high mortality rate from disseminated infections.

“It has been a concern for the mycological community because it shows resistance to most antifungals used clinically, mainly azoles, but also for causing epidemic outbreaks,” emphasized Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

Its mode of transmission is not very clear, but it has been documented to be present on the skin and persist in hospital materials and furniture. It causes nosocomial infections in critically ill patients, such as those in intensive care, and those with cancer or who have received a transplant.

Risk factors for its development include renal insufficiency, hospital stays of more than 15 days, mechanical ventilation, central lines, use of parenteral nutrition, and presence of sepsis.

As for other mycoses, there are no precise studies reporting global incidence rates, but the trend indicates an increase in the detection of outbreaks in various countries lately — something that began to be visible during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Mexico, Dr. Treviño Rangel and colleagues from Nuevo León reported the first case of candidemia caused by this agent. It occurred in May 2020 and involved a 58-year-old woman with a history of severe endometriosis and multiple complications in the gastrointestinal tract. The patient’s condition improved favorably thanks to antifungal therapy with caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B.

However, 3 months after that episode, the group reported an outbreak of C. auris at the same hospital in 12 critically ill patients co-infected with SARS-CoV-2. All were on mechanical ventilation, had peripherally inserted central catheters and urinary catheters, and had a prolonged hospital stay (20-70 days). The mortality in patients with candidemia in this cohort was 83.3%.
 

Open Ending

As seen in some science fiction series, fungal infections in the region still have an open ending, and Global Action For Fungal Infections (GAFFI) has estimated that with better diagnostics and treatments, deaths caused by fungi could decrease to less than 750,000 per year worldwide.

But if everything continues as is, some aspects of what is to come may resemble the dystopia depicted in The Last of Us. No zombies, but emerging and reemerging fungi in a chaotic distribution, and resistant to all established treatments.

“The risk factors of patients and their immune status, combined with the behavior of mycoses, bring a complicated scenario. But therapeutic failure resulting from multidrug resistance to antifungals could make it catastrophic,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes summarized.

At the moment, there are only four families of drugs capable of counteracting fungal infections — and as mentioned, some are already scarce in Latin America’s hospital pharmacies.

“Historically, fungal infections have been given less importance than those caused by viruses or bacteria. Even in some developed countries, the true extent of morbidity and mortality they present is unknown. This results in less investment in the development of new antifungal molecules because knowledge is lacking about the incidence and prevalence of these diseases,” Dr. Treviño Rangel pointed out.

He added that the main limitation for the development of new drugs is economic. “Unfortunately, not many pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest in the development of new antifungals, and there are no government programs specifically promoting and supporting research into new therapeutic options against these neglected diseases,” he asserted.

Development of vaccines to prevent fungal infections faces the same barriers. Although, according to Dr. Treviño Rangel, the difficulties are compounded by the great similarity between fungal cells and human cells. This makes it possible for harmful cross-reactivity to occur. In addition, because most severe fungal infections occur in individuals with immunosuppression, a vaccine would need to trigger an adequate immune response despite this issue.

Meanwhile, fungi quietly continue to do what they do best: resist and survive. For millions of years, they have mutated and adapted to new environments. Some theories even blame them for the extinction of dinosaurs and the subsequent rise of mammals. They exist on the edge of life and death, decomposing and creating. There is consensus that at the moment, it does not seem feasible for them to generate a pandemic like the one due to SARS-CoV-2, given their transmission mechanism. But who is willing to rule out that this may not happen in the long or medium term?

Dr. Sánchez Paredes, Dr. Treviño Rangel, Dr. Messina, Dr. Santiso, Dr. Álvarez, and Dr. Segundo Zaragoza have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

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

The principle of resilience and survival is crucial for medically significant fungi. These microorganisms are far from creating the postapocalyptic scenario depicted in TV series like The Last of Us, and much work is necessary to learn more about them. Accurate statistics on fungal infections, accompanied by clinical histories, simple laboratory tests, new antifungals, and a necessary One Health approach are lacking. 

The entomopathogenic fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis was made notorious by the TV series, but for now, it only manages to control the brains of some ants at will. Luckily, there are no signs that fungi affecting humans are inclined to create zombies.

What is clear is that the world belongs to the kingdom of fungi and that fungi are everywhere. There are already close to 150,000 described species, but millions remain to be discovered. They abound in decomposing organic matter, soil, or animal excrement, including that of bats and pigeons. Some fungi have even managed to find a home in hospitals. Lastly, we must not forget those that establish themselves in the human microbiome.

Given such diversity, it is legitimate to ask whether any of them could be capable of generating new pandemics. Could the forgotten Cryptococcus neoformans, Aspergillus fumigatus, or Histoplasma species, among others, trigger new health emergencies on the scale of the one generated by SARS-CoV-2?

We cannot forget that a coronavirus has already confirmed that reality can surpass fiction. However, Edith Sánchez Paredes, a biologist, doctor in biomedical sciences, and specialist in medical mycology, provided a reassuring response to Medscape Spanish Edition on this point.

“That would be very difficult to see because the way fungal infections are acquired is not from person to person, in most cases,” said Dr. Sánchez Paredes, from the Mycology Unit of the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Close to 300 species have already been classified as pathogenic in humans. Although the numbers are not precise and are increasing, it is estimated that around 1,500,000 people worldwide die each year of systemic fungal infections.

“However, it is important to emphasize that establishment of an infection depends not only on the causal agent. A crucial factor is the host, in this case, the human. Generally, these types of infections will develop in individuals with some deficiency in their immune system. The more deficient the immune response, the more likely a fungal infection may occur,” stated Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

The possibility of a pandemic like the one experienced with SARS-CoV-2 in the short term is remote, but the threat posed by fungal infections persists.

In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined a priority list of pathogenic fungi, with the aim of guiding actions to control them. It is mentioned there that invasive fungal diseases are on the rise worldwide, particularly in immunocompromised populations.

“Despite the growing concern, fungal infections receive very little attention and resources, leading to a paucity of quality data on fungal disease distribution and antifungal resistance patterns. Consequently, it is impossible to estimate their exact burden,” as stated in the document.

In line with this, an article published in Mycoses in 2022 concluded that fungal infections are neglected diseases in Latin America. Among other difficulties, deficiencies in access to tests such as polymerase chain reaction or serum detection of beta-1,3-D-glucan have been reported there.

In terms of treatments, most countries encounter problems with access to liposomal amphotericin B and new azoles, such as posaconazole and isavuconazole.

“Unfortunately, in Latin America, we suffer from a poor infrastructure for diagnosing fungal infections; likewise, we have limited access to antifungals available in the global market. What’s more, we lack reliable data on the epidemiology of fungal infections in the region, so many times governments are unaware of the true extent of the problem,” said Rogelio de Jesús Treviño Rangel, PhD, a medical microbiologist and expert in clinical mycology, professor, and researcher at the Faculty of Medicine of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León in Mexico.
 

Need for More Medical Mycology Training

Dr. Fernando Messina is a medical mycologist with the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has noted an increase in the number of cases of cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and aspergillosis in his daily practice.

“Particularly, pulmonary aspergillosis is steadily increasing. This is because many patients have structural lung alterations that favor the appearance of this mycosis. This is related to the increase in cases of tuberculosis and the rise in life expectancy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other pulmonary or systemic diseases,” Dr. Messina stated.

For Dr. Messina, the main obstacle in current clinical practice is the low level of awareness among nonspecialist physicians regarding the presence of systemic fungal infections, and because these infections are more common than realized, it is vital to consider fungal etiology before starting empirical antibiotic therapy.

“Health professionals usually do not think about mycoses because mycology occupies a very small space in medical education at universities. As the Venezuelan mycologist Gioconda Cunto de San Blas once said, ‘Mycology is the Cinderella of microbiology.’ To change this, we need to give more space to mycoses in undergraduate and postgraduate studies,” Dr. Messina asserted.

He added, “The main challenge is to train professionals with an emphasis on the clinical interpretation of cases. Current medicine has a strong trend toward molecular biology and the use of rapid diagnostic methods, without considering the clinical symptoms or the patient’s history. Determinations are very useful, but it is necessary to interpret the results.”

Dr. Messina sees it as unlikely in the short term for a pandemic to be caused by fungi, but if it were to occur, he believes it would happen in healthcare systems in regions that are not prepared in terms of infrastructure. However, as seen in the health emergency resulting from SARS-CoV-2, he thinks the impact would be mitigated by the performance of healthcare professionals.

“In general, we have the ability to adapt to any adverse situation or change — although it is clear that we need more doctors, biochemists, and microbiologists trained in mycology,” emphasized Dr. Messina.

More than 40 interns pass through Muñiz Hospital each year. They are doctors and biochemists from Argentina, other countries in the region, or even Europe, seeking to enhance their training in mycology. Regarding fungal infection laboratory work, the interest lies in learning to use traditional techniques and innovative molecular methods.

“Rapid diagnostic methods, especially the detection of circulating antigens, have marked a change in the prognosis of deep mycosis in immunocompromised hosts. The possibility of screening and monitoring in this group of patients is very important and has a great benefit,” said Gabriela Santiso, PhD, a biochemist and head of the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital.

According to Dr. Santiso, the current landscape includes the ability to identify genus and species, which can help in understanding resistance to antifungals. Furthermore, conducting sensitivity tests to these drugs, using standardized commercial methods, also provides timely information for treatment.

But Dr. Santiso warns that Latin America is a vast region with great disparity in human and technological resources. Although most countries in the region have networks facilitating access to timely diagnosis, resources are generally more available in major urban centers.

This often clashes with the epidemiology of most fungal infections. “Let’s not forget that many fungal pathologies affect low-income people who have difficulties accessing health centers, which sometimes turns them into chronic diseases that are hard to treat,” Dr. Santiso pointed out.

In mycology laboratories, the biggest cost is incurred by new diagnostic tests, such as those allowing molecular identification. Conventional methods are not usually expensive, but they require time and effort to train human resources to handle them.

Because new methodologies are not always available or easily accessible throughout the region, Dr. Santiso recommended not neglecting traditional mycological techniques. “Molecular methods, rapid diagnostic methods, and conventional mycology techniques are complementary and not mutually exclusive tests. Continuous training and updating are needed in this area,” she emphasized.
 

Why Are Resistant Fungal Infections Becoming Increasingly Common?

The first barrier for fungi to cause infection in humans is body temperature; most of them cannot withstand 37 °C. However, they also struggle to evade the immune response that is activated when they try to enter the body. 

“We are normally exposed to many of these fungi, almost all the time, but if our immune system is adequate, it may not go beyond a mild infection, in most cases subclinical, which will resolve quickly,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes stated.

However, according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes, if the immune response is weak, “the fungus will have no trouble establishing itself in our organs. Some are even part of our microbiota, such as Candida albicans, which in the face of an imbalance or immunocompromise, can lead to serious infections.”

It is clear that the population at risk for immunosuppression has increased. According to the WHO, this is due to the high prevalence of such diseases as tuberculosis, cancer, and HIV infection, among others.

But the WHO also believes that the increase in fungal infections is related to greater population access to critical care units, invasive procedures, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy treatments.

Furthermore, factors related to the fungus itself and the environment play a role. “These organisms have enzymes, proteins, and other molecules that allow them to survive in the environment in which they normally inhabit. When they face a new and stressful one, they must express other molecules that will allow them to survive. All of this helps them evade elements of the immune system, antifungals, and, of course, body temperature,” according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

It is possible that climate change is also behind the noticeable increase in fungal infections and that this crisis may have an even greater impact in the future. The temperature of the environment has increased, and fungi will have to adapt to the planet’s temperature, to the point where body temperature may no longer be a significant barrier for them.

Environmental changes would also be responsible for modifications in the distribution of endemic mycoses, and it is believed that fungi will more frequently find new ecological niches, be able to survive in other environments, and alter distribution zones.

This is what is happening between Mexico and the United States with coccidioidomycosis, or valley fever. “We will begin to see cases of some mycoses where they were not normally seen, so we will have to conduct more studies to confirm that the fungus is inhabiting these new areas or is simply appearing in new sites owing to migration and the great mobility of populations,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes said.

Finally, exposure to environmental factors would partly be responsible for the increasing resistance to first-line antifungals observed in these microorganisms. This seems to be the case with A. fumigatus when exposed to azoles used as fungicides in agriculture.
 

One Health in Fungal Infections

The increasing resistance to antifungals is a clear testament that human, animal, and environmental health are interconnected. This is why a multidisciplinary approach that adopts the perspective of One Health is necessary for its management.

“The use of fungicides in agriculture, structurally similar to the azoles used in clinics, generates resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus found in the environment. These fungi in humans can be associated with infections that do not respond to first-line treatment,” explained Carlos Arturo Álvarez, an infectious diseases physician and professor at the Faculty of Medicine at the National University of Colombia.

According to Dr. Álvarez, the approach to control them should not only focus on the search for diagnostic methods that allow early detection of antifungal resistance or research on new antifungal treatments. He believes that progress must also be made with strategies that allow for the proper use of antifungals in agriculture.

“Unfortunately, the One Health approach is not yet well implemented in the region, and in my view, there is a lack of articulation in the different sectors. That is, there is a need for true coordination between government offices of agriculture, animal and human health, academia, and international organizations. This is not happening yet, and I believe we are in the initial stage of visibility,” Dr. Álvarez opined.

Veterinary public health is another pillar of the aforementioned approach. For various reasons, animals experience a higher frequency of fungal infections. A few carry and transmit true zoonoses that affect human health, but most often, animals act only as sentinels indicating a potential source of transmission.

Carolina Segundo Zaragoza, PhD, has worked in veterinary mycology for 30 years. She currently heads the veterinary mycology laboratory at the Animal Production Teaching, Research, and Extension Center in Altiplano, under the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Because she has frequent contact with specialists in human mycology, during her professional career she has received several patient consultations, most of which were for cutaneous mycoses.

“They detect some dermatomycosis and realize that the common factor is owning a companion animal or a production animal with which the patient has contact. Both animals and humans present the same type of lesions, and then comes the question: Who infected whom? I remind them that the main source of infection is the soil and that animals should not be blamed in the first instance,” Dr. Segundo Zaragoza clarified.

She is currently collaborating on a research project analyzing the presence of Coccidioides immitis in the soil. This pathogen is responsible for coccidioidomycosis in dogs and humans, and she sees with satisfaction how these types of initiatives, which include some components of the One Health vision, are becoming more common in Mexico.

“Fortunately, human mycologists are increasingly providing more space for the dissemination of veterinary mycology. So I have had the opportunity to be invited to different forums on medical mycology to present the clinical cases we can have in animals and talk about the research projects we carry out. I have more and more opportunities to conduct joint research with human mycologists and veterinary doctors,” she said.

Dr. Segundo Zaragoza believes that to better implement the One Health vision, standardizing the criteria for detecting, diagnosing, and treating mycoses is necessary. She considers that teamwork will be key to achieving the common goal of safeguarding the well-being and health of humans and animals.
 

Alarms Sound for Candida auris

The WHO included the yeast Candida auris in its group of pathogens with critical priority, and since 2009, it has raised alarm owing to the ease with which it grows in hospitals. In that setting, C auris is known for its high transmissibility, its ability to cause outbreaks, and the high mortality rate from disseminated infections.

“It has been a concern for the mycological community because it shows resistance to most antifungals used clinically, mainly azoles, but also for causing epidemic outbreaks,” emphasized Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

Its mode of transmission is not very clear, but it has been documented to be present on the skin and persist in hospital materials and furniture. It causes nosocomial infections in critically ill patients, such as those in intensive care, and those with cancer or who have received a transplant.

Risk factors for its development include renal insufficiency, hospital stays of more than 15 days, mechanical ventilation, central lines, use of parenteral nutrition, and presence of sepsis.

As for other mycoses, there are no precise studies reporting global incidence rates, but the trend indicates an increase in the detection of outbreaks in various countries lately — something that began to be visible during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Mexico, Dr. Treviño Rangel and colleagues from Nuevo León reported the first case of candidemia caused by this agent. It occurred in May 2020 and involved a 58-year-old woman with a history of severe endometriosis and multiple complications in the gastrointestinal tract. The patient’s condition improved favorably thanks to antifungal therapy with caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B.

However, 3 months after that episode, the group reported an outbreak of C. auris at the same hospital in 12 critically ill patients co-infected with SARS-CoV-2. All were on mechanical ventilation, had peripherally inserted central catheters and urinary catheters, and had a prolonged hospital stay (20-70 days). The mortality in patients with candidemia in this cohort was 83.3%.
 

Open Ending

As seen in some science fiction series, fungal infections in the region still have an open ending, and Global Action For Fungal Infections (GAFFI) has estimated that with better diagnostics and treatments, deaths caused by fungi could decrease to less than 750,000 per year worldwide.

But if everything continues as is, some aspects of what is to come may resemble the dystopia depicted in The Last of Us. No zombies, but emerging and reemerging fungi in a chaotic distribution, and resistant to all established treatments.

“The risk factors of patients and their immune status, combined with the behavior of mycoses, bring a complicated scenario. But therapeutic failure resulting from multidrug resistance to antifungals could make it catastrophic,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes summarized.

At the moment, there are only four families of drugs capable of counteracting fungal infections — and as mentioned, some are already scarce in Latin America’s hospital pharmacies.

“Historically, fungal infections have been given less importance than those caused by viruses or bacteria. Even in some developed countries, the true extent of morbidity and mortality they present is unknown. This results in less investment in the development of new antifungal molecules because knowledge is lacking about the incidence and prevalence of these diseases,” Dr. Treviño Rangel pointed out.

He added that the main limitation for the development of new drugs is economic. “Unfortunately, not many pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest in the development of new antifungals, and there are no government programs specifically promoting and supporting research into new therapeutic options against these neglected diseases,” he asserted.

Development of vaccines to prevent fungal infections faces the same barriers. Although, according to Dr. Treviño Rangel, the difficulties are compounded by the great similarity between fungal cells and human cells. This makes it possible for harmful cross-reactivity to occur. In addition, because most severe fungal infections occur in individuals with immunosuppression, a vaccine would need to trigger an adequate immune response despite this issue.

Meanwhile, fungi quietly continue to do what they do best: resist and survive. For millions of years, they have mutated and adapted to new environments. Some theories even blame them for the extinction of dinosaurs and the subsequent rise of mammals. They exist on the edge of life and death, decomposing and creating. There is consensus that at the moment, it does not seem feasible for them to generate a pandemic like the one due to SARS-CoV-2, given their transmission mechanism. But who is willing to rule out that this may not happen in the long or medium term?

Dr. Sánchez Paredes, Dr. Treviño Rangel, Dr. Messina, Dr. Santiso, Dr. Álvarez, and Dr. Segundo Zaragoza have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

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

The principle of resilience and survival is crucial for medically significant fungi. These microorganisms are far from creating the postapocalyptic scenario depicted in TV series like The Last of Us, and much work is necessary to learn more about them. Accurate statistics on fungal infections, accompanied by clinical histories, simple laboratory tests, new antifungals, and a necessary One Health approach are lacking. 

The entomopathogenic fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis was made notorious by the TV series, but for now, it only manages to control the brains of some ants at will. Luckily, there are no signs that fungi affecting humans are inclined to create zombies.

What is clear is that the world belongs to the kingdom of fungi and that fungi are everywhere. There are already close to 150,000 described species, but millions remain to be discovered. They abound in decomposing organic matter, soil, or animal excrement, including that of bats and pigeons. Some fungi have even managed to find a home in hospitals. Lastly, we must not forget those that establish themselves in the human microbiome.

Given such diversity, it is legitimate to ask whether any of them could be capable of generating new pandemics. Could the forgotten Cryptococcus neoformans, Aspergillus fumigatus, or Histoplasma species, among others, trigger new health emergencies on the scale of the one generated by SARS-CoV-2?

We cannot forget that a coronavirus has already confirmed that reality can surpass fiction. However, Edith Sánchez Paredes, a biologist, doctor in biomedical sciences, and specialist in medical mycology, provided a reassuring response to Medscape Spanish Edition on this point.

“That would be very difficult to see because the way fungal infections are acquired is not from person to person, in most cases,” said Dr. Sánchez Paredes, from the Mycology Unit of the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Close to 300 species have already been classified as pathogenic in humans. Although the numbers are not precise and are increasing, it is estimated that around 1,500,000 people worldwide die each year of systemic fungal infections.

“However, it is important to emphasize that establishment of an infection depends not only on the causal agent. A crucial factor is the host, in this case, the human. Generally, these types of infections will develop in individuals with some deficiency in their immune system. The more deficient the immune response, the more likely a fungal infection may occur,” stated Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

The possibility of a pandemic like the one experienced with SARS-CoV-2 in the short term is remote, but the threat posed by fungal infections persists.

In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined a priority list of pathogenic fungi, with the aim of guiding actions to control them. It is mentioned there that invasive fungal diseases are on the rise worldwide, particularly in immunocompromised populations.

“Despite the growing concern, fungal infections receive very little attention and resources, leading to a paucity of quality data on fungal disease distribution and antifungal resistance patterns. Consequently, it is impossible to estimate their exact burden,” as stated in the document.

In line with this, an article published in Mycoses in 2022 concluded that fungal infections are neglected diseases in Latin America. Among other difficulties, deficiencies in access to tests such as polymerase chain reaction or serum detection of beta-1,3-D-glucan have been reported there.

In terms of treatments, most countries encounter problems with access to liposomal amphotericin B and new azoles, such as posaconazole and isavuconazole.

“Unfortunately, in Latin America, we suffer from a poor infrastructure for diagnosing fungal infections; likewise, we have limited access to antifungals available in the global market. What’s more, we lack reliable data on the epidemiology of fungal infections in the region, so many times governments are unaware of the true extent of the problem,” said Rogelio de Jesús Treviño Rangel, PhD, a medical microbiologist and expert in clinical mycology, professor, and researcher at the Faculty of Medicine of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León in Mexico.
 

Need for More Medical Mycology Training

Dr. Fernando Messina is a medical mycologist with the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has noted an increase in the number of cases of cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis, and aspergillosis in his daily practice.

“Particularly, pulmonary aspergillosis is steadily increasing. This is because many patients have structural lung alterations that favor the appearance of this mycosis. This is related to the increase in cases of tuberculosis and the rise in life expectancy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other pulmonary or systemic diseases,” Dr. Messina stated.

For Dr. Messina, the main obstacle in current clinical practice is the low level of awareness among nonspecialist physicians regarding the presence of systemic fungal infections, and because these infections are more common than realized, it is vital to consider fungal etiology before starting empirical antibiotic therapy.

“Health professionals usually do not think about mycoses because mycology occupies a very small space in medical education at universities. As the Venezuelan mycologist Gioconda Cunto de San Blas once said, ‘Mycology is the Cinderella of microbiology.’ To change this, we need to give more space to mycoses in undergraduate and postgraduate studies,” Dr. Messina asserted.

He added, “The main challenge is to train professionals with an emphasis on the clinical interpretation of cases. Current medicine has a strong trend toward molecular biology and the use of rapid diagnostic methods, without considering the clinical symptoms or the patient’s history. Determinations are very useful, but it is necessary to interpret the results.”

Dr. Messina sees it as unlikely in the short term for a pandemic to be caused by fungi, but if it were to occur, he believes it would happen in healthcare systems in regions that are not prepared in terms of infrastructure. However, as seen in the health emergency resulting from SARS-CoV-2, he thinks the impact would be mitigated by the performance of healthcare professionals.

“In general, we have the ability to adapt to any adverse situation or change — although it is clear that we need more doctors, biochemists, and microbiologists trained in mycology,” emphasized Dr. Messina.

More than 40 interns pass through Muñiz Hospital each year. They are doctors and biochemists from Argentina, other countries in the region, or even Europe, seeking to enhance their training in mycology. Regarding fungal infection laboratory work, the interest lies in learning to use traditional techniques and innovative molecular methods.

“Rapid diagnostic methods, especially the detection of circulating antigens, have marked a change in the prognosis of deep mycosis in immunocompromised hosts. The possibility of screening and monitoring in this group of patients is very important and has a great benefit,” said Gabriela Santiso, PhD, a biochemist and head of the Mycology Unit of the Francisco Javier Muñiz Infectious Diseases Hospital.

According to Dr. Santiso, the current landscape includes the ability to identify genus and species, which can help in understanding resistance to antifungals. Furthermore, conducting sensitivity tests to these drugs, using standardized commercial methods, also provides timely information for treatment.

But Dr. Santiso warns that Latin America is a vast region with great disparity in human and technological resources. Although most countries in the region have networks facilitating access to timely diagnosis, resources are generally more available in major urban centers.

This often clashes with the epidemiology of most fungal infections. “Let’s not forget that many fungal pathologies affect low-income people who have difficulties accessing health centers, which sometimes turns them into chronic diseases that are hard to treat,” Dr. Santiso pointed out.

In mycology laboratories, the biggest cost is incurred by new diagnostic tests, such as those allowing molecular identification. Conventional methods are not usually expensive, but they require time and effort to train human resources to handle them.

Because new methodologies are not always available or easily accessible throughout the region, Dr. Santiso recommended not neglecting traditional mycological techniques. “Molecular methods, rapid diagnostic methods, and conventional mycology techniques are complementary and not mutually exclusive tests. Continuous training and updating are needed in this area,” she emphasized.
 

Why Are Resistant Fungal Infections Becoming Increasingly Common?

The first barrier for fungi to cause infection in humans is body temperature; most of them cannot withstand 37 °C. However, they also struggle to evade the immune response that is activated when they try to enter the body. 

“We are normally exposed to many of these fungi, almost all the time, but if our immune system is adequate, it may not go beyond a mild infection, in most cases subclinical, which will resolve quickly,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes stated.

However, according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes, if the immune response is weak, “the fungus will have no trouble establishing itself in our organs. Some are even part of our microbiota, such as Candida albicans, which in the face of an imbalance or immunocompromise, can lead to serious infections.”

It is clear that the population at risk for immunosuppression has increased. According to the WHO, this is due to the high prevalence of such diseases as tuberculosis, cancer, and HIV infection, among others.

But the WHO also believes that the increase in fungal infections is related to greater population access to critical care units, invasive procedures, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy treatments.

Furthermore, factors related to the fungus itself and the environment play a role. “These organisms have enzymes, proteins, and other molecules that allow them to survive in the environment in which they normally inhabit. When they face a new and stressful one, they must express other molecules that will allow them to survive. All of this helps them evade elements of the immune system, antifungals, and, of course, body temperature,” according to Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

It is possible that climate change is also behind the noticeable increase in fungal infections and that this crisis may have an even greater impact in the future. The temperature of the environment has increased, and fungi will have to adapt to the planet’s temperature, to the point where body temperature may no longer be a significant barrier for them.

Environmental changes would also be responsible for modifications in the distribution of endemic mycoses, and it is believed that fungi will more frequently find new ecological niches, be able to survive in other environments, and alter distribution zones.

This is what is happening between Mexico and the United States with coccidioidomycosis, or valley fever. “We will begin to see cases of some mycoses where they were not normally seen, so we will have to conduct more studies to confirm that the fungus is inhabiting these new areas or is simply appearing in new sites owing to migration and the great mobility of populations,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes said.

Finally, exposure to environmental factors would partly be responsible for the increasing resistance to first-line antifungals observed in these microorganisms. This seems to be the case with A. fumigatus when exposed to azoles used as fungicides in agriculture.
 

One Health in Fungal Infections

The increasing resistance to antifungals is a clear testament that human, animal, and environmental health are interconnected. This is why a multidisciplinary approach that adopts the perspective of One Health is necessary for its management.

“The use of fungicides in agriculture, structurally similar to the azoles used in clinics, generates resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus found in the environment. These fungi in humans can be associated with infections that do not respond to first-line treatment,” explained Carlos Arturo Álvarez, an infectious diseases physician and professor at the Faculty of Medicine at the National University of Colombia.

According to Dr. Álvarez, the approach to control them should not only focus on the search for diagnostic methods that allow early detection of antifungal resistance or research on new antifungal treatments. He believes that progress must also be made with strategies that allow for the proper use of antifungals in agriculture.

“Unfortunately, the One Health approach is not yet well implemented in the region, and in my view, there is a lack of articulation in the different sectors. That is, there is a need for true coordination between government offices of agriculture, animal and human health, academia, and international organizations. This is not happening yet, and I believe we are in the initial stage of visibility,” Dr. Álvarez opined.

Veterinary public health is another pillar of the aforementioned approach. For various reasons, animals experience a higher frequency of fungal infections. A few carry and transmit true zoonoses that affect human health, but most often, animals act only as sentinels indicating a potential source of transmission.

Carolina Segundo Zaragoza, PhD, has worked in veterinary mycology for 30 years. She currently heads the veterinary mycology laboratory at the Animal Production Teaching, Research, and Extension Center in Altiplano, under the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Because she has frequent contact with specialists in human mycology, during her professional career she has received several patient consultations, most of which were for cutaneous mycoses.

“They detect some dermatomycosis and realize that the common factor is owning a companion animal or a production animal with which the patient has contact. Both animals and humans present the same type of lesions, and then comes the question: Who infected whom? I remind them that the main source of infection is the soil and that animals should not be blamed in the first instance,” Dr. Segundo Zaragoza clarified.

She is currently collaborating on a research project analyzing the presence of Coccidioides immitis in the soil. This pathogen is responsible for coccidioidomycosis in dogs and humans, and she sees with satisfaction how these types of initiatives, which include some components of the One Health vision, are becoming more common in Mexico.

“Fortunately, human mycologists are increasingly providing more space for the dissemination of veterinary mycology. So I have had the opportunity to be invited to different forums on medical mycology to present the clinical cases we can have in animals and talk about the research projects we carry out. I have more and more opportunities to conduct joint research with human mycologists and veterinary doctors,” she said.

Dr. Segundo Zaragoza believes that to better implement the One Health vision, standardizing the criteria for detecting, diagnosing, and treating mycoses is necessary. She considers that teamwork will be key to achieving the common goal of safeguarding the well-being and health of humans and animals.
 

Alarms Sound for Candida auris

The WHO included the yeast Candida auris in its group of pathogens with critical priority, and since 2009, it has raised alarm owing to the ease with which it grows in hospitals. In that setting, C auris is known for its high transmissibility, its ability to cause outbreaks, and the high mortality rate from disseminated infections.

“It has been a concern for the mycological community because it shows resistance to most antifungals used clinically, mainly azoles, but also for causing epidemic outbreaks,” emphasized Dr. Sánchez Paredes.

Its mode of transmission is not very clear, but it has been documented to be present on the skin and persist in hospital materials and furniture. It causes nosocomial infections in critically ill patients, such as those in intensive care, and those with cancer or who have received a transplant.

Risk factors for its development include renal insufficiency, hospital stays of more than 15 days, mechanical ventilation, central lines, use of parenteral nutrition, and presence of sepsis.

As for other mycoses, there are no precise studies reporting global incidence rates, but the trend indicates an increase in the detection of outbreaks in various countries lately — something that began to be visible during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Mexico, Dr. Treviño Rangel and colleagues from Nuevo León reported the first case of candidemia caused by this agent. It occurred in May 2020 and involved a 58-year-old woman with a history of severe endometriosis and multiple complications in the gastrointestinal tract. The patient’s condition improved favorably thanks to antifungal therapy with caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B.

However, 3 months after that episode, the group reported an outbreak of C. auris at the same hospital in 12 critically ill patients co-infected with SARS-CoV-2. All were on mechanical ventilation, had peripherally inserted central catheters and urinary catheters, and had a prolonged hospital stay (20-70 days). The mortality in patients with candidemia in this cohort was 83.3%.
 

Open Ending

As seen in some science fiction series, fungal infections in the region still have an open ending, and Global Action For Fungal Infections (GAFFI) has estimated that with better diagnostics and treatments, deaths caused by fungi could decrease to less than 750,000 per year worldwide.

But if everything continues as is, some aspects of what is to come may resemble the dystopia depicted in The Last of Us. No zombies, but emerging and reemerging fungi in a chaotic distribution, and resistant to all established treatments.

“The risk factors of patients and their immune status, combined with the behavior of mycoses, bring a complicated scenario. But therapeutic failure resulting from multidrug resistance to antifungals could make it catastrophic,” Dr. Sánchez Paredes summarized.

At the moment, there are only four families of drugs capable of counteracting fungal infections — and as mentioned, some are already scarce in Latin America’s hospital pharmacies.

“Historically, fungal infections have been given less importance than those caused by viruses or bacteria. Even in some developed countries, the true extent of morbidity and mortality they present is unknown. This results in less investment in the development of new antifungal molecules because knowledge is lacking about the incidence and prevalence of these diseases,” Dr. Treviño Rangel pointed out.

He added that the main limitation for the development of new drugs is economic. “Unfortunately, not many pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest in the development of new antifungals, and there are no government programs specifically promoting and supporting research into new therapeutic options against these neglected diseases,” he asserted.

Development of vaccines to prevent fungal infections faces the same barriers. Although, according to Dr. Treviño Rangel, the difficulties are compounded by the great similarity between fungal cells and human cells. This makes it possible for harmful cross-reactivity to occur. In addition, because most severe fungal infections occur in individuals with immunosuppression, a vaccine would need to trigger an adequate immune response despite this issue.

Meanwhile, fungi quietly continue to do what they do best: resist and survive. For millions of years, they have mutated and adapted to new environments. Some theories even blame them for the extinction of dinosaurs and the subsequent rise of mammals. They exist on the edge of life and death, decomposing and creating. There is consensus that at the moment, it does not seem feasible for them to generate a pandemic like the one due to SARS-CoV-2, given their transmission mechanism. But who is willing to rule out that this may not happen in the long or medium term?

Dr. Sánchez Paredes, Dr. Treviño Rangel, Dr. Messina, Dr. Santiso, Dr. Álvarez, and Dr. Segundo Zaragoza have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

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

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

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

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

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

According to a US cross-sectional study, every fifth hospital patient with a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection develops an acute cardiovascular event. For patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition, an acute cardiovascular event occurs in every third patient, as shown by data published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

RSV attacks the respiratory tract, especially the mucous membranes of the upper airways and the ciliated epithelium of the trachea and bronchi. It is not the first respiratory virus with devastating consequences for the cardiovascular system.

“In the COVID-19 pandemic, we painfully learned that patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions have significantly higher mortality rates and that cardiovascular causes are essential in COVID-19 mortality,” said Stephan Baldus, MD, director of Clinic III for Internal Medicine at the Heart Center of the University Hospital Cologne in Cologne, Germany.

“A direct link between the virus and the development of acute coronary events has also been demonstrated for influenza. Studies have shown that in the early days of an influenza infection, the rates of heart attacks and subsequent deaths increase significantly,” Dr. Baldus added. “And now, this study shows that patients with cardiovascular diseases have a critically increased risk for an acute cardiovascular event during an RSV infection.”
 

RSV Surveillance

Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and her colleagues analyzed data from an RSV surveillance program involving hospitals in 12 US states. The data covered hospitalized adults aged 50 years and older from five RSV seasons (from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018 and 2022/2023).

The 6248 patients were hospitalized for various reasons. They had a mean age of 73 years, and 60% of them were women. RSV infection was detected through a physician-ordered test within 14 days of admission. Slightly more than half (56.4%) of the patients had a preexisting cardiovascular condition that did not necessitate hospital treatment.

The researchers reported that more than a fifth (22.4%) of the patients with RSV had an acute cardiovascular event. Acute heart failure was most common (15.8%), but there were also acute ischemic heart disease in 7.5%, hypertensive crisis in 1.3%, ventricular tachycardia in 1.1%, and cardiogenic shock in 0.6%.
 

Acute Cardiovascular Events

Among the study population, 8.5% had no documented cardiovascular preexisting conditions. However, the risk was particularly elevated in patients with cardiovascular preexisting conditions. Overall, 33.0% of them had an acute cardiovascular event during the RSV infection.

Patients with acute cardiovascular events were almost twice as likely to have a severe course as those without acute cardiovascular events. The researchers considered treatment in the intensive care unit, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or the patient’s death in the hospital as severe outcomes.

Of all hospitalized patients with RSV, 18.6% required intensive care unit treatment, and 4.9% died during hospitalization. Compared with those without acute cardiovascular events, those with acute cardiovascular events had a significantly higher risk for intensive care treatment (25.8% vs 16.5%) and death in the hospital (8.1% vs 4.0%).

Although the analysis is not a prospective controlled study, according to Dr. Baldus, the results strongly suggest that RSV has cardiovascular effects. “When one in five hospitalized patients develops a cardiovascular event, that’s very suggestive,” he said.
 

More Testing Needed?

The results add to the evidence that RSV infections in older patients are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Unlike for COVID-19 and influenza, however, there is hardly any surveillance for RSV infections. RSV testing in hospitals is rare. Many doctors opt against testing for RSV because they are not aware of the importance of RSV as a pathogen in adults, but also because the diagnosis of RSV has no therapeutic consequences, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

Because there is no targeted therapy for an RSV infection, the detection of RSV can only be used as a marker for a risk for the development of an acute cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Baldus. Even considering the new study data, he emphasized, “Not every patient with a cardiovascular preexisting condition needs to be tested for RSV.”

The crucial factor is the clinical presentation. “If there is a clinical indication of pulmonary impairment (shortness of breath, tachypnea, subfebrile temperatures, or a diminished general condition) it would be desirable to perform an RSV test. This is especially true for patients requiring intensive care who need respiratory support,” said Dr. Baldus.
 

Benefits of Vaccination

The results highlight the basic epidemiology of potential cardiovascular complications of RSV infections, but before RSV vaccination became available, wrote Dr. Woodruff and her colleagues.

In 2023, the first RSV vaccine for adults aged 60 years and older was approved. “Here, a door to additional possibilities opens,” said Dr. Baldus. Although there are currently no official vaccination recommendations from Germany’s Standing Vaccination Commission, medical societies of oncologists and pulmonologists recommend vaccination against RSV. “Given the relevance of cardiovascular diseases for the prognosis of patients, but also for the occurrence of an acute cardiovascular event upon detection of RSV, the corresponding recommendation is expected to come,” said Dr. Baldus.

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

An updated clinical approach to diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) that considers five potential phenotype categories instead of the usual three could aid clinical management and better center patient needs, according to the authors of a new study in The Journal of Urology.

The current diagnostic paradigm includes UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), or not UTI, but the researchers believe these categories exclude for more ambiguous clinical cases, such as patients whose bacteria counts are low but who are symptomatic, or when nonspecific symptoms make it difficult to determine whether treatment with antibiotics is appropriate.

“Our findings suggest the need to reframe our conceptual model of UTI vs ASB to recognize clinical uncertainty and reflect the full spectrum of clinical presentations,” Sonali D. Advani, MBBS, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in infectious disease at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, and her colleagues wrote. “Recent data suggest that UTI may present as a bidirectional continuum from asymptomatic bladder colonization to a symptomatic bladder infection,” and some populations may lack the signs or symptoms specific to urinary tract or have chronic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) that make it difficult to distinguish between ASB and UTI, they wrote.

Nitya E. Abraham, MD, an associate professor of urology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Einstein in New York City, agreed the current paradigm has room for refinement.

“The current classification system doesn’t account for certain patients such as patients who have bothersome urinary symptoms, but urine testing comes back negative, or patients with positive urine testing, but who aren’t able to report the presence or absence of symptoms,” Dr. Abraham, who was not involved in the new research, told this news organization.

Boback Berookhim, MD, a urologist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, who was also not involved in the research, said the goal with this study appears to be better identifying who will need antibiotics.

“I think this is more of a forward-looking study in terms of trying to identify patients who currently may not be treated or may be over treated and better identifying subsets,” Dr. Berookhim told this news organization.

However, he said the relevance of the work is far greater in hospitals than in outpatient settings.

“I think it’s much more relevant in inpatient environments where a patient is in hospital and whatever antibiotics are being written are going to be overseen and you’re going to see higher resistance patterns,” Dr. Berookhim said. “For the average doctor who’s seeing patients in the office and writing them prescriptions in the office, this doesn’t really affect them.”
 

Antibiotic Dilemma

A key issue in determining the best approach to UTI diagnosis is assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment. Up to half of hospitalized patients have ASB, for which current practice guidelines advise against antibiotics, Dr. Advani and her colleagues noted. Yet many of these patients receive antibiotics regardless, and research has shown links between treatment and longer length of stay, antibiotic resistance, and infection with Clostridioides difficile.

The challenge comes with patients who do not fit easily into the existing categories. One includes patients who have positive urine cultures but whose symptoms, such as hypotension or fever, are not specific to the genitourinary tract.

While current guidelines advise against treating these patients with antibiotics, the patients are often older adults with cognitive impairment or delirium, and frontline physicians may err on the side of prescribing antibiotics because of their clinical uncertainty. That treatment can lead to tension with hospital antibiotic stewardship teams that recommend withholding antibiotics for those patients.

“These clinical scenarios highlight differences between the frontline clinicians’ and antibiotic stewardship teams’ definitions of ‘asymptomatic,’ highlighting the ambiguity of the term ‘asymptomatic bacteriuria,’” Dr. Advani and her colleagues wrote.

A fever, for example, could signal a viral or bacterial infection or result from a nonurinary source, Dr. Abraham said. “The antibiotic stewardship team likely prefers to observe the clinical course and wait for more data to demonstrate need for antibiotics,” she said. “Hence, there are conflicting priorities and confusion of when to treat with antibiotics for this common dilemma in patients presenting to the ER or urgent care.”

Meanwhile, other patients, particularly women, may present with urinary symptoms and pyuria but have lab results revealing a colony count below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold that would indicate antibiotic treatment.

“Some of these women are likely suffering from a UTI and may not receive treatment if clinicians focus primarily on the urine culture results,” Dr. Abraham said. She pointed out the existence of other options than urine culture for better identifying UTI, such as urinary cell-free DNA or next-generation DNA testing of the urine. But she also said the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold should not be absolute.

“For example, I will treat patients for UTI with 10,000-50,000 CFU/mL if they also have UTI symptoms like blood in the urine, burning with urination, bladder pain, increased urgency or frequency, and the urinalysis shows a high white blood cell count,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Abraham also noted a third group outside the scope of the new study: People with urinary symptoms who don’t undergo urine tests or who are treated empirically with antibiotics. “It is unclear whether those in this group truly have a UTI, but it is a common scenario that patients are unable to get urine tests and are treated with over-the-phone prescriptions to expedite treatment,” she said.
 

Get on the BUS

The researchers conducted a retrospective study across one academic medical center and four community hospitals in three states to assess the feasibility of using five categories of UTI diagnosis: The three existing ones plus LUTS/other urologic symptoms (OUS) and bacteriuria of unclear significance (BUS). These additional categories arose out of an hour-long discussion with a focus group of experts across several disciplines.

The analysis covered the charts of 3392 randomly selected encounters out of 220,531 total inpatient or emergency department encounters between January 2017 and December 2019 in which adults received a urinalysis and urine culture order within the same 24-hour period. The patients’ median age was 67 years, over half (59.6%) were women, and nearly a quarter (24.2%) had an underlying immunocompromising condition.

Most of the cultures were obtained from inpatients. Nearly a third (30.6%) were negative for culture, while 42.1% grew at least 100,000 CFU/mL of bacteria and 17% grew mixed flora.

Based on current criteria, 21.3% of the patients had a UTI, 20.8% had ASB, and 47.6% had no UTI. The remaining 10.3% had culture growth under 100,000 CFU/mL and, therefore, did not fit in any of these categories, “as there is no consistent guidance on whether to classify them as no UTI or ASB or contamination,” the authors wrote.

When the researchers applied the new criteria, more than half of the cases of ASB (68%) were reclassified as BUS, and 28.9% of the no-UTI cases were reclassified as LUTS/OUS.

In a sensitivity analysis that examined samples with bacteriuria below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold, nearly half the unclassified cases (43.3%) were reassigned as a UTI, increasing the proportion of patients with a diagnosed UTI from 21.3% to 25.8% of the total population. Of the remaining patients who had originally been unclassified, 14.2% were newly defined as ASB, and 42.5% became BUS.

Dr. Abraham said the addition of the BUS and LUTS/OUS categories has the potential to improve and individualize patient care. Clinicians can consider nonantibiotic therapies for the patients who had LUTS/OUS while they look into possible causes, while the BUS cases enable frontline clinicians and antibiotic stewardship teams to “meet in the middle” by monitoring those patients more closely in case symptoms worsen, she said.

The authors highlighted three key takeaways from their study, starting with the fact that nearly two thirds of patients who underwent testing for a UTI did not have signs or symptoms localized to the urinary tract — the ones reclassified as BUS.

“Hence, reclassifying patients as BUS may provide an opportunity to acknowledge diagnostic uncertainty and need for additional monitoring than ASB patients so as to promote a nuanced and patient-centered approach to diagnosis and management,” the authors wrote.

Second, a third of patients initially classified as not having a UTI were reclassified into the new LUTS/OUS category because of their symptoms, such as a poor or intermittent stream, dribbling, hesitancy, frequency, urge incontinence, and nocturia. These patients would need further workup to determine the best approach to management.

Finally, the sensitivity analysis “suggested that lowering the bacterial threshold in some symptomatic patients may capture additional patients with UTI whose symptoms may be dismissed due to concern for contamination or attributed to LUTS rather than infection.” Given that the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold is based on a single study in 1956, the authors suggested more research may help define better CFU thresholds to improve clinical care.

Dr. Berookhim said the study authors took a reasonable and thorough approach in how they tried to consider the best way to update the current diagnostic classification schema.

“I think using this as a jumping off point to look deeper is worthwhile,” such as conducting randomized controlled trials to assess the use of new categories, he said. “Getting more granular than this, I think, would just muddy the waters and make it more difficult to make clinical decisions.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Advani reported consulting fees from Locus Biosciences, Sysmex America, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Berookhim reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An updated clinical approach to diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) that considers five potential phenotype categories instead of the usual three could aid clinical management and better center patient needs, according to the authors of a new study in The Journal of Urology.

The current diagnostic paradigm includes UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), or not UTI, but the researchers believe these categories exclude for more ambiguous clinical cases, such as patients whose bacteria counts are low but who are symptomatic, or when nonspecific symptoms make it difficult to determine whether treatment with antibiotics is appropriate.

“Our findings suggest the need to reframe our conceptual model of UTI vs ASB to recognize clinical uncertainty and reflect the full spectrum of clinical presentations,” Sonali D. Advani, MBBS, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in infectious disease at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, and her colleagues wrote. “Recent data suggest that UTI may present as a bidirectional continuum from asymptomatic bladder colonization to a symptomatic bladder infection,” and some populations may lack the signs or symptoms specific to urinary tract or have chronic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) that make it difficult to distinguish between ASB and UTI, they wrote.

Nitya E. Abraham, MD, an associate professor of urology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Einstein in New York City, agreed the current paradigm has room for refinement.

“The current classification system doesn’t account for certain patients such as patients who have bothersome urinary symptoms, but urine testing comes back negative, or patients with positive urine testing, but who aren’t able to report the presence or absence of symptoms,” Dr. Abraham, who was not involved in the new research, told this news organization.

Boback Berookhim, MD, a urologist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, who was also not involved in the research, said the goal with this study appears to be better identifying who will need antibiotics.

“I think this is more of a forward-looking study in terms of trying to identify patients who currently may not be treated or may be over treated and better identifying subsets,” Dr. Berookhim told this news organization.

However, he said the relevance of the work is far greater in hospitals than in outpatient settings.

“I think it’s much more relevant in inpatient environments where a patient is in hospital and whatever antibiotics are being written are going to be overseen and you’re going to see higher resistance patterns,” Dr. Berookhim said. “For the average doctor who’s seeing patients in the office and writing them prescriptions in the office, this doesn’t really affect them.”
 

Antibiotic Dilemma

A key issue in determining the best approach to UTI diagnosis is assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment. Up to half of hospitalized patients have ASB, for which current practice guidelines advise against antibiotics, Dr. Advani and her colleagues noted. Yet many of these patients receive antibiotics regardless, and research has shown links between treatment and longer length of stay, antibiotic resistance, and infection with Clostridioides difficile.

The challenge comes with patients who do not fit easily into the existing categories. One includes patients who have positive urine cultures but whose symptoms, such as hypotension or fever, are not specific to the genitourinary tract.

While current guidelines advise against treating these patients with antibiotics, the patients are often older adults with cognitive impairment or delirium, and frontline physicians may err on the side of prescribing antibiotics because of their clinical uncertainty. That treatment can lead to tension with hospital antibiotic stewardship teams that recommend withholding antibiotics for those patients.

“These clinical scenarios highlight differences between the frontline clinicians’ and antibiotic stewardship teams’ definitions of ‘asymptomatic,’ highlighting the ambiguity of the term ‘asymptomatic bacteriuria,’” Dr. Advani and her colleagues wrote.

A fever, for example, could signal a viral or bacterial infection or result from a nonurinary source, Dr. Abraham said. “The antibiotic stewardship team likely prefers to observe the clinical course and wait for more data to demonstrate need for antibiotics,” she said. “Hence, there are conflicting priorities and confusion of when to treat with antibiotics for this common dilemma in patients presenting to the ER or urgent care.”

Meanwhile, other patients, particularly women, may present with urinary symptoms and pyuria but have lab results revealing a colony count below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold that would indicate antibiotic treatment.

“Some of these women are likely suffering from a UTI and may not receive treatment if clinicians focus primarily on the urine culture results,” Dr. Abraham said. She pointed out the existence of other options than urine culture for better identifying UTI, such as urinary cell-free DNA or next-generation DNA testing of the urine. But she also said the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold should not be absolute.

“For example, I will treat patients for UTI with 10,000-50,000 CFU/mL if they also have UTI symptoms like blood in the urine, burning with urination, bladder pain, increased urgency or frequency, and the urinalysis shows a high white blood cell count,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Abraham also noted a third group outside the scope of the new study: People with urinary symptoms who don’t undergo urine tests or who are treated empirically with antibiotics. “It is unclear whether those in this group truly have a UTI, but it is a common scenario that patients are unable to get urine tests and are treated with over-the-phone prescriptions to expedite treatment,” she said.
 

Get on the BUS

The researchers conducted a retrospective study across one academic medical center and four community hospitals in three states to assess the feasibility of using five categories of UTI diagnosis: The three existing ones plus LUTS/other urologic symptoms (OUS) and bacteriuria of unclear significance (BUS). These additional categories arose out of an hour-long discussion with a focus group of experts across several disciplines.

The analysis covered the charts of 3392 randomly selected encounters out of 220,531 total inpatient or emergency department encounters between January 2017 and December 2019 in which adults received a urinalysis and urine culture order within the same 24-hour period. The patients’ median age was 67 years, over half (59.6%) were women, and nearly a quarter (24.2%) had an underlying immunocompromising condition.

Most of the cultures were obtained from inpatients. Nearly a third (30.6%) were negative for culture, while 42.1% grew at least 100,000 CFU/mL of bacteria and 17% grew mixed flora.

Based on current criteria, 21.3% of the patients had a UTI, 20.8% had ASB, and 47.6% had no UTI. The remaining 10.3% had culture growth under 100,000 CFU/mL and, therefore, did not fit in any of these categories, “as there is no consistent guidance on whether to classify them as no UTI or ASB or contamination,” the authors wrote.

When the researchers applied the new criteria, more than half of the cases of ASB (68%) were reclassified as BUS, and 28.9% of the no-UTI cases were reclassified as LUTS/OUS.

In a sensitivity analysis that examined samples with bacteriuria below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold, nearly half the unclassified cases (43.3%) were reassigned as a UTI, increasing the proportion of patients with a diagnosed UTI from 21.3% to 25.8% of the total population. Of the remaining patients who had originally been unclassified, 14.2% were newly defined as ASB, and 42.5% became BUS.

Dr. Abraham said the addition of the BUS and LUTS/OUS categories has the potential to improve and individualize patient care. Clinicians can consider nonantibiotic therapies for the patients who had LUTS/OUS while they look into possible causes, while the BUS cases enable frontline clinicians and antibiotic stewardship teams to “meet in the middle” by monitoring those patients more closely in case symptoms worsen, she said.

The authors highlighted three key takeaways from their study, starting with the fact that nearly two thirds of patients who underwent testing for a UTI did not have signs or symptoms localized to the urinary tract — the ones reclassified as BUS.

“Hence, reclassifying patients as BUS may provide an opportunity to acknowledge diagnostic uncertainty and need for additional monitoring than ASB patients so as to promote a nuanced and patient-centered approach to diagnosis and management,” the authors wrote.

Second, a third of patients initially classified as not having a UTI were reclassified into the new LUTS/OUS category because of their symptoms, such as a poor or intermittent stream, dribbling, hesitancy, frequency, urge incontinence, and nocturia. These patients would need further workup to determine the best approach to management.

Finally, the sensitivity analysis “suggested that lowering the bacterial threshold in some symptomatic patients may capture additional patients with UTI whose symptoms may be dismissed due to concern for contamination or attributed to LUTS rather than infection.” Given that the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold is based on a single study in 1956, the authors suggested more research may help define better CFU thresholds to improve clinical care.

Dr. Berookhim said the study authors took a reasonable and thorough approach in how they tried to consider the best way to update the current diagnostic classification schema.

“I think using this as a jumping off point to look deeper is worthwhile,” such as conducting randomized controlled trials to assess the use of new categories, he said. “Getting more granular than this, I think, would just muddy the waters and make it more difficult to make clinical decisions.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Advani reported consulting fees from Locus Biosciences, Sysmex America, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Berookhim reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An updated clinical approach to diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) that considers five potential phenotype categories instead of the usual three could aid clinical management and better center patient needs, according to the authors of a new study in The Journal of Urology.

The current diagnostic paradigm includes UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), or not UTI, but the researchers believe these categories exclude for more ambiguous clinical cases, such as patients whose bacteria counts are low but who are symptomatic, or when nonspecific symptoms make it difficult to determine whether treatment with antibiotics is appropriate.

“Our findings suggest the need to reframe our conceptual model of UTI vs ASB to recognize clinical uncertainty and reflect the full spectrum of clinical presentations,” Sonali D. Advani, MBBS, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in infectious disease at Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina, and her colleagues wrote. “Recent data suggest that UTI may present as a bidirectional continuum from asymptomatic bladder colonization to a symptomatic bladder infection,” and some populations may lack the signs or symptoms specific to urinary tract or have chronic lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) that make it difficult to distinguish between ASB and UTI, they wrote.

Nitya E. Abraham, MD, an associate professor of urology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Einstein in New York City, agreed the current paradigm has room for refinement.

“The current classification system doesn’t account for certain patients such as patients who have bothersome urinary symptoms, but urine testing comes back negative, or patients with positive urine testing, but who aren’t able to report the presence or absence of symptoms,” Dr. Abraham, who was not involved in the new research, told this news organization.

Boback Berookhim, MD, a urologist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, who was also not involved in the research, said the goal with this study appears to be better identifying who will need antibiotics.

“I think this is more of a forward-looking study in terms of trying to identify patients who currently may not be treated or may be over treated and better identifying subsets,” Dr. Berookhim told this news organization.

However, he said the relevance of the work is far greater in hospitals than in outpatient settings.

“I think it’s much more relevant in inpatient environments where a patient is in hospital and whatever antibiotics are being written are going to be overseen and you’re going to see higher resistance patterns,” Dr. Berookhim said. “For the average doctor who’s seeing patients in the office and writing them prescriptions in the office, this doesn’t really affect them.”
 

Antibiotic Dilemma

A key issue in determining the best approach to UTI diagnosis is assessing the appropriateness of antibiotic treatment. Up to half of hospitalized patients have ASB, for which current practice guidelines advise against antibiotics, Dr. Advani and her colleagues noted. Yet many of these patients receive antibiotics regardless, and research has shown links between treatment and longer length of stay, antibiotic resistance, and infection with Clostridioides difficile.

The challenge comes with patients who do not fit easily into the existing categories. One includes patients who have positive urine cultures but whose symptoms, such as hypotension or fever, are not specific to the genitourinary tract.

While current guidelines advise against treating these patients with antibiotics, the patients are often older adults with cognitive impairment or delirium, and frontline physicians may err on the side of prescribing antibiotics because of their clinical uncertainty. That treatment can lead to tension with hospital antibiotic stewardship teams that recommend withholding antibiotics for those patients.

“These clinical scenarios highlight differences between the frontline clinicians’ and antibiotic stewardship teams’ definitions of ‘asymptomatic,’ highlighting the ambiguity of the term ‘asymptomatic bacteriuria,’” Dr. Advani and her colleagues wrote.

A fever, for example, could signal a viral or bacterial infection or result from a nonurinary source, Dr. Abraham said. “The antibiotic stewardship team likely prefers to observe the clinical course and wait for more data to demonstrate need for antibiotics,” she said. “Hence, there are conflicting priorities and confusion of when to treat with antibiotics for this common dilemma in patients presenting to the ER or urgent care.”

Meanwhile, other patients, particularly women, may present with urinary symptoms and pyuria but have lab results revealing a colony count below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold that would indicate antibiotic treatment.

“Some of these women are likely suffering from a UTI and may not receive treatment if clinicians focus primarily on the urine culture results,” Dr. Abraham said. She pointed out the existence of other options than urine culture for better identifying UTI, such as urinary cell-free DNA or next-generation DNA testing of the urine. But she also said the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold should not be absolute.

“For example, I will treat patients for UTI with 10,000-50,000 CFU/mL if they also have UTI symptoms like blood in the urine, burning with urination, bladder pain, increased urgency or frequency, and the urinalysis shows a high white blood cell count,” Dr. Abraham said.

Dr. Abraham also noted a third group outside the scope of the new study: People with urinary symptoms who don’t undergo urine tests or who are treated empirically with antibiotics. “It is unclear whether those in this group truly have a UTI, but it is a common scenario that patients are unable to get urine tests and are treated with over-the-phone prescriptions to expedite treatment,” she said.
 

Get on the BUS

The researchers conducted a retrospective study across one academic medical center and four community hospitals in three states to assess the feasibility of using five categories of UTI diagnosis: The three existing ones plus LUTS/other urologic symptoms (OUS) and bacteriuria of unclear significance (BUS). These additional categories arose out of an hour-long discussion with a focus group of experts across several disciplines.

The analysis covered the charts of 3392 randomly selected encounters out of 220,531 total inpatient or emergency department encounters between January 2017 and December 2019 in which adults received a urinalysis and urine culture order within the same 24-hour period. The patients’ median age was 67 years, over half (59.6%) were women, and nearly a quarter (24.2%) had an underlying immunocompromising condition.

Most of the cultures were obtained from inpatients. Nearly a third (30.6%) were negative for culture, while 42.1% grew at least 100,000 CFU/mL of bacteria and 17% grew mixed flora.

Based on current criteria, 21.3% of the patients had a UTI, 20.8% had ASB, and 47.6% had no UTI. The remaining 10.3% had culture growth under 100,000 CFU/mL and, therefore, did not fit in any of these categories, “as there is no consistent guidance on whether to classify them as no UTI or ASB or contamination,” the authors wrote.

When the researchers applied the new criteria, more than half of the cases of ASB (68%) were reclassified as BUS, and 28.9% of the no-UTI cases were reclassified as LUTS/OUS.

In a sensitivity analysis that examined samples with bacteriuria below the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold, nearly half the unclassified cases (43.3%) were reassigned as a UTI, increasing the proportion of patients with a diagnosed UTI from 21.3% to 25.8% of the total population. Of the remaining patients who had originally been unclassified, 14.2% were newly defined as ASB, and 42.5% became BUS.

Dr. Abraham said the addition of the BUS and LUTS/OUS categories has the potential to improve and individualize patient care. Clinicians can consider nonantibiotic therapies for the patients who had LUTS/OUS while they look into possible causes, while the BUS cases enable frontline clinicians and antibiotic stewardship teams to “meet in the middle” by monitoring those patients more closely in case symptoms worsen, she said.

The authors highlighted three key takeaways from their study, starting with the fact that nearly two thirds of patients who underwent testing for a UTI did not have signs or symptoms localized to the urinary tract — the ones reclassified as BUS.

“Hence, reclassifying patients as BUS may provide an opportunity to acknowledge diagnostic uncertainty and need for additional monitoring than ASB patients so as to promote a nuanced and patient-centered approach to diagnosis and management,” the authors wrote.

Second, a third of patients initially classified as not having a UTI were reclassified into the new LUTS/OUS category because of their symptoms, such as a poor or intermittent stream, dribbling, hesitancy, frequency, urge incontinence, and nocturia. These patients would need further workup to determine the best approach to management.

Finally, the sensitivity analysis “suggested that lowering the bacterial threshold in some symptomatic patients may capture additional patients with UTI whose symptoms may be dismissed due to concern for contamination or attributed to LUTS rather than infection.” Given that the 100,000 CFU/mL threshold is based on a single study in 1956, the authors suggested more research may help define better CFU thresholds to improve clinical care.

Dr. Berookhim said the study authors took a reasonable and thorough approach in how they tried to consider the best way to update the current diagnostic classification schema.

“I think using this as a jumping off point to look deeper is worthwhile,” such as conducting randomized controlled trials to assess the use of new categories, he said. “Getting more granular than this, I think, would just muddy the waters and make it more difficult to make clinical decisions.”

The research was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Advani reported consulting fees from Locus Biosciences, Sysmex America, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Berookhim reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tell someone you’re a doctor, and the reaction is often: “You must be rich.” But physicians who are just finishing medical school or are in their early careers might feel far from it. The average medical school debt is more than $200,000, with total debts including undergrad climbing well north of $250,000.

That leaves house-hunting physicians in a predicament. A key factor for lending institutions is the “debt to income” ratio, a calculation which indicates if you already have too much debt to pay your mortgage. That single equation could eliminate you from lenders’ mortgage requirements.

But young doctors are also in a unique situation. Yes, they carry above-average levels of debt, but they are on a path to substantial income in future years. That’s where the physician mortgage loan (PML) becomes a useful option. 

What Is a Physician Mortgage Loan?

A PML is designed to help physicians access mortgages despite large amounts of debt. They are also sometimes available to dentists, veterinarians, podiatrists, and others, according to Stephen Chang, MD, a radiologist, and a managing director at Acts Financial Advisors in McLean, Virginia.

The key features, according to James M. Dahle, MD, an emergency physician and founder of The White Coat Investor, include:

• No required down payment, which is typically 20% with a conventional loan.
• No private mortgage insurance (PMI). This is often a requirement of traditional loans, designed to protect the lender if the buyer misses payments. PMLs don’t involve PMI even if you don’t put down 20%.
• No pay stubs. With a conventional loan, pay stubs are often required to prove income level and reliability. PMLs will often allow an employment contract in place of those. 
• Different consideration of the student loan burden.

Those are the upsides, of course, but there may be downsides. Dr. Dahle said a PML might involve slightly higher rates and fees than a conventional mortgage does but not always.

Who Is Best Suited for a Physician Mortgage Loan?

Financial advisers caution that everyone should first consider their full financial picture before applying for a mortgage, PML or otherwise. “If you don’t have the money saved for a down payment, one can ask if you are financially prepared to purchase a home,” says Cobin Soelberg, MD, an anesthesiologist and owner of Greeley Wealth Management, a financial planning firm serving physician families in Bend, Oregon. 

If your savings are slim, you might need to build those accounts further before pursuing home ownership and the expenses that come along with it.

Your credit score can contribute to the equation. “With any loan product, we always recommend working to optimize your personal credit score as soon as possible before applying for a loan,” said Mark P. Eid, MD, a dermatologist and co–managing director (with Dr. Chang) at Act Financial Advisors. “Once you get into the high 700s, you’ve typically qualified for the best interest rates, so while that perfect 850 is nice to achieve, it’s by no means necessary.”

Also, assess your reasons for purchasing a home and whether it will fit your lifestyle in the coming years. “The main reason that [my wife and I] wanted to buy a home was for stability,” said Jordan Frey, MD, founder of The Prudent Plastic Surgeon. “After living in apartments for years, we wanted a place that was truly our own. We definitely felt disappointed and frustrated when worrying that our student debt may limit our ability to do this.”

Like many physicians, Dr. Frey had taken on a huge amount of debt, to the tune of half a million dollars in student loans and credit card debt when he finished training in 2020. The question Dr. Frey and his wife wrestled with was: “How much debt should we take on in addition to what we already have?”

What Are the Risks? What’s in the Fine Print?

The eased limitations of PMLs come with potential pitfalls, and physicians should not imagine that they have unlimited buying power.

“Many physicians buy more expensive or bigger houses than they need simply because banks are willing to lend physicians money,” Dr. Soelberg warns. “So, the doctor gets locked into a large mortgage and cannot build wealth, save for retirement, and repay their student loans.” 

As you shop around, beware of omissions and scams. When meeting with lenders, Dr. Frey recalled that some didn’t even present PMLs as an option, and others presented them with unfavorable terms. He was careful to look for disadvantages hidden in the fine print, such as a potential “big hike in the rate a year later.” 

But sometimes, a scam is not outright deception but is more like temptation. So it’s important to have your own best interests in mind without relying on lenders’ advice. 

“When we were shopping around, some mortgage lenders would [offer] $1.5 million, and we thought ‘that makes no sense,’ ” said Dr. Frey. “[Physicians] have big future income, which makes us attractive to these lenders. No one in their right mind would give a mortgage like this to anyone else. They aren’t worried about whether it’s a smart decision for you or not.” 

What Other Red Flags Should You Look Out for?

Dr. Frey recommends medical professionals beware of these red flags when shopping for PMLs:

• A request for any type of collateral, including your medical practice
• A rate that is much higher than others
• A lender is pushing you to borrow a higher amount than you’re comfortable with 
• A lender attempts to influence your decision about the size of your down payment

Remember, if you are choosing an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), your rate will recalibrate on the basis of the market’s rates — for better or worse. This means that your payment might be higher or lower, taking current interest rates into account, based on the market.

Looking back, Dr. Frey said he might reconsider his decision to use a 10-year ARM. He and his wife chose it because the rate was low at the time, and they planned to pay off the mortgage quickly or move before it went up. But the uncertainty added an element of pressure. 

How Can PMLs Contribute to Overall Financial Health?

Dr. Frey says his physician mortgage was “a huge advantage,” allowing him and his wife to put 0% down on their home without PMI. But most importantly, it fit within their overall financial plan, which included investing. “The money that we would have potentially used for a down payment, we used to buy a rental property, which then got us more income,” he says. 

Of course, buying a rental property is not the only path to financial health and freedom. Many people approach a home as an investment that will eventually become fully their own. Others might put that down payment toward building a safety net of savings accounts. 

Used strategically and intentionally, PMLs can put you on a more predictable financial path. And with less money stress, buying a home can be an exciting milestone as you plan your future and put down roots in a community.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the past few decades, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increasingly relied on surrogate measures such as blood tests instead of clinical outcomes for medication approvals. But critics say the agency lacks consistent standards to ensure the surrogate aligns with clinical outcomes that matter to patients — things like improvements in symptoms and gains in function.

Sometimes those decisions backfire. Consider: In July 2021, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, bucking the advice of an advisory panel for the agency that questioned the effectiveness of the medication. Regulators relied on data from the drugmaker, Biogen, showing the monoclonal antibody could reduce levels of amyloid beta plaques in blood — a surrogate marker officials hoped would translate to clinical benefit.

The FDA’s decision triggered significant controversy, and Biogen in January announced it is pulling it from the market this year, citing disappointing sales.

Although the case of aducanumab might seem extreme, given the stakes — Alzheimer’s remains a disease without an effective treatment — it’s far from unusual.

“When we prescribe a drug, there is an underlying assumption that the FDA has done its due diligence to confirm the drug is safe and of benefit,” said Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, a researcher at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and a coauthor of a recent review of surrogate outcomes. “In fact, we found either no evidence or low-quality evidence.” Such markers are associated with clinical outcomes. “We just don’t know if they work meaningfully to treat the patient’s condition. The results were pretty shocking for us,” she said.

The FDA in 2018 released an Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table listing markers that can be used as substitutes for clinical outcomes to more quickly test, review, and approve new therapies. The analysis found the majority of these endpoints lacked subsequent confirmations, defined as published meta-analyses of clinical studies to validate the association between the marker and a clinical outcome important to patients.

In a paper published in JAMA, Dr. Ramachandran and her colleagues looked at 37 surrogate endpoints for nearly 3 dozen nononcologic diseases in the table.

Approval with surrogate markers implies responsibility for postapproval or validation studies — not just lab measures or imaging findings but mortality, morbidity, or improved quality of life, said Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta and lead author of the JAMA review.

Dr. Wallach said surrogate markers are easier to measure and do not require large and long trials. But the FDA has not provided clear rules for what makes a surrogate marker valid in clinical trials.

“They’ve said that at a minimum, it requires meta-analytical evidence from studies that have looked at the correlation or the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome,” Dr. Wallach said. “Our understanding was that if that’s a minimum expectation, we should be able to find those studies in the literature. And the reality is that we were unable to find evidence from those types of studies supporting the association between the surrogate and the clinical outcome.”

Physicians generally do not receive training about the FDA approval process and the difference between biomarkers, surrogate markers, and clinical endpoints, Dr. Ramachandran said. “Our study shows that things are much more uncertain than we thought when it comes to the prescribing of new drugs,” she said.
 

Surrogate Markers on the Rise

Dr. Wallach’s group looked for published meta-analyses compiling randomized controlled trials reporting surrogate endpoints for more than 3 dozen chronic nononcologic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, kidney disease, HIV, gout, and lupus. They found no meta-analyses at all for 59% of the surrogate markers, while for those that were studied, few reported high-strength evidence of an association with clinical outcomes.

The findings echo previous research. In a 2020 study in JAMA Network Open, researchers tallied primary endpoints for all FDA approvals of new drugs and therapies during three 3-year periods: 1995-1997, 2005-2007, and 2015-2017. The proportion of products whose approvals were based on the use of clinical endpoints decreased from 43.8% in 1995-1997 to 28.4% in 2005-2007 to 23.3% in 2015-2017. The share based on surrogate endpoints rose from 43.3% to roughly 60% over the same interval.

A 2017 study in the Journal of Health Economics found the use of “imperfect” surrogate endpoints helped support the approval of an average of 16 new drugs per year between 2010 and 2014 compared with six per year from 1998 to 2008.

Similar concerns about weak associations between surrogate markers and drugs used to treat cancer have been documented before, including in a 2020 study published in eClinicalMedicine. The researchers found the surrogate endpoints in the FDA table either were not tested or were tested but proven to be weak surrogates.

“And yet the FDA considered these as good enough not only for accelerated approval but also for regular approval,” said Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, associate professor in the department of oncology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who led the group.

The use of surrogate endpoints is also increasing in Europe, said Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD, associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science in England. He cited a cohort study of 298 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in JAMA Oncology suggesting “contemporary oncology RCTs now largely measure putative surrogate endpoints.” Dr. Wallach called the FDA’s surrogate table “a great first step toward transparency. But a key column is missing from that table, telling us what is the basis for which the FDA allows drug companies to use the recognized surrogate markers. What is the evidence they are considering?”

If the agency allows companies the flexibility to validate surrogate endpoints, postmarketing studies designed to confirm the clinical utility of those endpoints should follow.

“We obviously want physicians to be guided by evidence when they’re selecting treatments, and they need to be able to interpret the clinical benefits of the drug that they’re prescribing,” he said. “This is really about having the research consumer, patients, and physicians, as well as industry, understand why certain markers are considered and not considered.”

Dr. Wallach reported receiving grants from the FDA (through the Yale University — Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (1K01AA028258), and Johnson & Johnson (through the Yale University Open Data Access Project); and consulting fees from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC outside the submitted work. Dr. Ramachandran reported receiving grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation and FDA; receiving consulting fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance strategy policy program outside the submitted work; and serving in an unpaid capacity as chair of the FDA task force for the nonprofit organization Doctors for America and in an unpaid capacity as board president for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines North America.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.

Large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT have shown mixed results in the quality of their responses to consumer questions about cancer.

One recent study found AI chatbots to churn out incomplete, inaccurate, or even nonsensical cancer treatment recommendations, while another found them to generate largely accurate — if technical — responses to the most common cancer questions.

While researchers have seen success with purpose-built chatbots created to address patient concerns about specific cancers, the consensus to date has been that the generalized models like ChatGPT remain works in progress and that physicians should avoid pointing patients to them, for now.

Yet new findings suggest that these chatbots may do better than individual physicians, at least on some measures, when it comes to answering queries about cancer. For research published May 16 in JAMA Oncology (doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0836), David Chen, a medical student at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, isolated a random sample of 200 questions related to cancer care addressed to doctors on the public online forum Reddit. They then compared responses from oncologists with responses generated by three different AI chatbots. The blinded responses were rated for quality, readability, and empathy by six physicians, including oncologists and palliative and supportive care specialists.

Mr. Chen and colleagues’ research was modeled after a 2023 study that measured the quality of physician responses compared with chatbots for general medicine questions addressed to doctors on Reddit. That study found that the chatbots produced more empathetic-sounding answers, something Mr. Chen’s study also found. The best-performing chatbot in Mr. Chen and colleagues’ study, Claude AI, performed significantly higher than the Reddit physicians on all the domains evaluated: quality, empathy, and readability.
 

Q&A With Author of New Research

Mr. Chen discussed his new study’s implications during an interview with this news organization.

Question: What is novel about this study?

Mr. Chen: We’ve seen many evaluations of chatbots that test for medical accuracy, but this study occurs in the domain of oncology care, where there are unique psychosocial and emotional considerations that are not precisely reflected in a general medicine setting. In effect, this study is putting these chatbots through a harder challenge.



Question: Why would chatbot responses seem more empathetic than those of physicians?

Mr. Chen: With the physician responses that we observed in our sample data set, we saw that there was very high variation of amount of apparent effort [in the physician responses]. Some physicians would put in a lot of time and effort, thinking through their response, and others wouldn’t do so as much. These chatbots don’t face fatigue the way humans do, or burnout. So they’re able to consistently provide responses with less variation in empathy.



Question: Do chatbots just seem empathetic because they are chattier?

Mr. Chen: We did think of verbosity as a potential confounder in this study. So we set a word count limit for the chatbot responses to keep it in the range of the physician responses. That way, verbosity was no longer a significant factor.



Question: How were quality and empathy measured by the reviewers?

Mr. Chen: For our study we used two teams of readers, each team composed of three physicians. In terms of the actual metrics we used, they were pilot metrics. There are no well-defined measurement scales or checklists that we could use to measure empathy. This is an emerging field of research. So we came up by consensus with our own set of ratings, and we feel that this is an area for the research to define a standardized set of guidelines.

Another novel aspect of this study is that we separated out different dimensions of quality and empathy. A quality response didn’t just mean it was medically accurate — quality also had to do with the focus and completeness of the response.

With empathy there are cognitive and emotional dimensions. Cognitive empathy uses critical thinking to understand the person’s emotions and thoughts and then adjusting a response to fit that. A patient may not want the best medically indicated treatment for their condition, because they want to preserve their quality of life. The chatbot may be able to adjust its recommendation with consideration of some of those humanistic elements that the patient is presenting with.

Emotional empathy is more about being supportive of the patient’s emotions by using expressions like ‘I understand where you’re coming from.’ or, ‘I can see how that makes you feel.’



Question: Why would physicians, not patients, be the best evaluators of empathy?

Mr. Chen: We’re actually very interested in evaluating patient ratings of empathy. We are conducting a follow-up study that evaluates patient ratings of empathy to the same set of chatbot and physician responses,to see if there are differences.



Question: Should cancer patients go ahead and consult chatbots?

Mr. Chen: Although we did observe increases in all of the metrics compared with physicians, this is a very specialized evaluation scenario where we’re using these Reddit questions and responses.

Naturally, we would need to do a trial, a head to head randomized comparison of physicians versus chatbots.

This pilot study does highlight the promising potential of these chatbots to suggest responses. But we can’t fully recommend that they should be used as standalone clinical tools without physicians.

This Q&A was edited for clarity.