Neurology Reviews

Ubrelvy and Nurtec are the latest in acute migraine treatment, both with solid data to back them up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ubrelvy and Nurtec are the latest in acute migraine treatment, both with solid data to back them up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ubrelvy and Nurtec are the latest in acute migraine treatment, both with solid data to back them up.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A novel, once-nightly formulation of sodium oxybate is safe and effective for treating both subjective and objective symptoms of narcolepsy, new research suggests. Top-line results from the phase 3 REST-ON trial released earlier this year showed that the agent known as FT218 (Avadel Pharmaceuticals) met all three of its coprimary efficacy endpoints at all three doses assessed (6 g, 7.5 g, and 9 g). Patients receiving the drug showed significantly greater improvements on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), and mean weekly attacks of cataplexy, compared with those who received placebo.

The new analyses, which focused on key secondary outcomes, showed that all three doses of the novel agent were associated with significant improvements in sleep quality, refreshing nature of sleep, sleep paralysis, disturbed nocturnal sleep, and scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).

Principal investigator Michael J. Thorpy, MD, director of the Sleep-Wake Disorders Center at the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said in a news release that the results represent “the promise of a potential new treatment strategy for physicians and patients.”

“I am particularly impressed by the consistency of results as early as 3 weeks with only a 6-g dose,” he added.

Dr. Thorpy, who is also a professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, noted that the new formulation will be more convenient for patients. “The advantage of this medication is its once-nightly formulation, so patients don’t need to awaken during the night and can actually have a better night’s sleep,” he said.

Dr. Thorpy presented the study findings at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

FT218 is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has set Oct. 15 as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date.

Forced awakening

Sodium oxybate was first approved by the FDA in 2002 to treat cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy and was expanded in 2005 to also treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). That formulation is indicated for twice-nightly administration, with the second dose taken 2.5-4 hours after the first.

“The need for forced awakening to take the second dose ... may result in noncompliance, which may lead to reduced efficacy and/or mistimed doses,” the investigators noted.

FT218 is a modified-release version of sodium oxybate. A single 6-g dose of the investigational agent “has shown bioequivalent exposure to twice-nightly immediate-release [sodium oxybate] given as two 3-g doses,” wrote the researchers.

It also currently has Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter REST-ON study was conducted from November 2016 to March 2020 and included patients 16 years or older who had narcolepsy type 1 or type 2.

Patients received the active treatment (n = 107; mean age, 30.9 years; 64.5% women) or placebo (n = 105; mean age, 31.6 years; 71.4% women) according to a four-period forced uptitration dosing schedule of 4.5 g for 1 week, 6 g for 2 weeks, 7.5 g for 5 weeks, and 9 g for 5 weeks.

Secondary outcome measures included the ESS, sleep quality/refreshing nature of sleep on a visual analog scale, sleep paralysis and hypnagogic hallucinations on a sleep symptoms diary, disturbed nocturnal sleep on polysomnographic measures, and number of arousals as defined per the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Score Manual.

Reports of adverse events (AEs) were collected from time of informed consent until 7 days after the last dose received.

Improvement across doses

Results showed that, compared with placebo, improvement in disturbed nocturnal sleep from baseline was significantly greater for the active treatment at 6 g at week 3 (mean between-group difference, –11; P < .001), at 7.5 g at week 8 (mean difference, –17.7; P < .001), and at 9 g at week 13 (mean difference, –22.6; P < .001).

The mean difference between the three doses and placebo for reduction in number of arousals was –11.3 (P < .05), –19.4 (P < .001), and –23.7 (P < .001), respectively. And the 6 g at week 3, 7.5 g at week 8, and 9 g at week 13 doses showed significant (P < .001) improvements versus placebo on the ESS (mean difference, –2.1, –3.2, and –3.9, respectively).

All three doses also showed significant improvement in sleep quality and refreshing nature of sleep (P < .001 for all comparisons), as well as improvement of sleep paralysis (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively).

There were no significant differences between FT218 and placebo for improvement in hypnagogic hallucinations. Dr. Thorpy noted that the number of patients with baseline hallucinations “was relatively small,” which may have led to this finding. “Had there been a much larger population with hallucinations, I suspect that we would have seen a statistically significant improvement there as well,” he said.

Generally well tolerated

The investigators noted that FT218 was “generally well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were well-known and established sodium oxybate adverse reactions.”

Treatment-related AEs that occurred in more than 2% of the patients receiving FT218 included nausea, dizziness, enuresis, headache, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

Seven serious AEs were reported, including five in those assigned to the active treatment. This included one case each of diabetes inadequate control, paresthesia, perirectal abscess, hypertension, and suicidal ideation. Only the case of suicidal ideation was considered to be a treatment-related AE.

The investigators noted that, although they have not yet delved into subgroup analysis to look for differences among sex, age, or race, they plan to do so in the future.

Overall, the results indicate that “FT218 is an effective agent not only for the major symptoms of sleepiness and cataplexy, but also the quality of sleep at night,” said Dr. Thorpy.

Asked whether he thinks the FDA will approve the drug, he said that it should be “straightforward” because it’s just a different formulation of an already-approved agent. “I very much expect there will not be any problems in this medication being approved,” Dr. Thorpy said.

Benefits ‘sleep architecture’

Commenting on the findings, Logan Schneider, MD, codirector of the Stanford/VA Alzheimer’s Center and clinical assistant professor at the Stanford Sleep Center, Redwood City, Calif., said that the investigators’ focus on these secondary outcomes “was really worthwhile.”

Dr. Schneider, who was not involved in the research, noted that, because the study only included patients with narcolepsy, the results can’t be extrapolated to groups who have other sleep disorders.

Still, “it is worthwhile now to expand beyond the two primary symptoms that are, in my consideration, life threatening: daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. We should also address more of the quality of life and other aspects of narcolepsy, including disturbed nocturnal sleep and sleep quality issues related to that,” he said.

“Being able to address those aspects and say, ‘I have a therapy that clearly helps the multidimensionality of our patients’ is very vindicating,” Dr. Schneider noted.

He was also impressed with the various measures the researchers used, rather than relying just on patient reports, “which are subject to recollection difficulties. This was a nice way to quantify possibly as a diagnostic marker the underlying disruption of sleep, as well as a possible treatment marker to show how well a therapy works.”

“It actually shows a beneficial effect on sleep architecture,” Dr. Schneider said.

The study was funded by Avadel Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Thorpy is a consultant/advisory board member for Avadel, Axsome, Balance Therapeutics, Eisai, Harmony Biosciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, NLS Pharmaceuticals, Suven Life Sciences, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Schneider reports being an adviser and/or on the speakers’ bureau for similar drugs by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Harmony Biosciences.

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

A novel, once-nightly formulation of sodium oxybate is safe and effective for treating both subjective and objective symptoms of narcolepsy, new research suggests. Top-line results from the phase 3 REST-ON trial released earlier this year showed that the agent known as FT218 (Avadel Pharmaceuticals) met all three of its coprimary efficacy endpoints at all three doses assessed (6 g, 7.5 g, and 9 g). Patients receiving the drug showed significantly greater improvements on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), and mean weekly attacks of cataplexy, compared with those who received placebo.

The new analyses, which focused on key secondary outcomes, showed that all three doses of the novel agent were associated with significant improvements in sleep quality, refreshing nature of sleep, sleep paralysis, disturbed nocturnal sleep, and scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).

Principal investigator Michael J. Thorpy, MD, director of the Sleep-Wake Disorders Center at the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said in a news release that the results represent “the promise of a potential new treatment strategy for physicians and patients.”

“I am particularly impressed by the consistency of results as early as 3 weeks with only a 6-g dose,” he added.

Dr. Thorpy, who is also a professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, noted that the new formulation will be more convenient for patients. “The advantage of this medication is its once-nightly formulation, so patients don’t need to awaken during the night and can actually have a better night’s sleep,” he said.

Dr. Thorpy presented the study findings at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

FT218 is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has set Oct. 15 as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date.

Forced awakening

Sodium oxybate was first approved by the FDA in 2002 to treat cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy and was expanded in 2005 to also treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). That formulation is indicated for twice-nightly administration, with the second dose taken 2.5-4 hours after the first.

“The need for forced awakening to take the second dose ... may result in noncompliance, which may lead to reduced efficacy and/or mistimed doses,” the investigators noted.

FT218 is a modified-release version of sodium oxybate. A single 6-g dose of the investigational agent “has shown bioequivalent exposure to twice-nightly immediate-release [sodium oxybate] given as two 3-g doses,” wrote the researchers.

It also currently has Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter REST-ON study was conducted from November 2016 to March 2020 and included patients 16 years or older who had narcolepsy type 1 or type 2.

Patients received the active treatment (n = 107; mean age, 30.9 years; 64.5% women) or placebo (n = 105; mean age, 31.6 years; 71.4% women) according to a four-period forced uptitration dosing schedule of 4.5 g for 1 week, 6 g for 2 weeks, 7.5 g for 5 weeks, and 9 g for 5 weeks.

Secondary outcome measures included the ESS, sleep quality/refreshing nature of sleep on a visual analog scale, sleep paralysis and hypnagogic hallucinations on a sleep symptoms diary, disturbed nocturnal sleep on polysomnographic measures, and number of arousals as defined per the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Score Manual.

Reports of adverse events (AEs) were collected from time of informed consent until 7 days after the last dose received.

Improvement across doses

Results showed that, compared with placebo, improvement in disturbed nocturnal sleep from baseline was significantly greater for the active treatment at 6 g at week 3 (mean between-group difference, –11; P < .001), at 7.5 g at week 8 (mean difference, –17.7; P < .001), and at 9 g at week 13 (mean difference, –22.6; P < .001).

The mean difference between the three doses and placebo for reduction in number of arousals was –11.3 (P < .05), –19.4 (P < .001), and –23.7 (P < .001), respectively. And the 6 g at week 3, 7.5 g at week 8, and 9 g at week 13 doses showed significant (P < .001) improvements versus placebo on the ESS (mean difference, –2.1, –3.2, and –3.9, respectively).

All three doses also showed significant improvement in sleep quality and refreshing nature of sleep (P < .001 for all comparisons), as well as improvement of sleep paralysis (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively).

There were no significant differences between FT218 and placebo for improvement in hypnagogic hallucinations. Dr. Thorpy noted that the number of patients with baseline hallucinations “was relatively small,” which may have led to this finding. “Had there been a much larger population with hallucinations, I suspect that we would have seen a statistically significant improvement there as well,” he said.

Generally well tolerated

The investigators noted that FT218 was “generally well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were well-known and established sodium oxybate adverse reactions.”

Treatment-related AEs that occurred in more than 2% of the patients receiving FT218 included nausea, dizziness, enuresis, headache, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

Seven serious AEs were reported, including five in those assigned to the active treatment. This included one case each of diabetes inadequate control, paresthesia, perirectal abscess, hypertension, and suicidal ideation. Only the case of suicidal ideation was considered to be a treatment-related AE.

The investigators noted that, although they have not yet delved into subgroup analysis to look for differences among sex, age, or race, they plan to do so in the future.

Overall, the results indicate that “FT218 is an effective agent not only for the major symptoms of sleepiness and cataplexy, but also the quality of sleep at night,” said Dr. Thorpy.

Asked whether he thinks the FDA will approve the drug, he said that it should be “straightforward” because it’s just a different formulation of an already-approved agent. “I very much expect there will not be any problems in this medication being approved,” Dr. Thorpy said.

Benefits ‘sleep architecture’

Commenting on the findings, Logan Schneider, MD, codirector of the Stanford/VA Alzheimer’s Center and clinical assistant professor at the Stanford Sleep Center, Redwood City, Calif., said that the investigators’ focus on these secondary outcomes “was really worthwhile.”

Dr. Schneider, who was not involved in the research, noted that, because the study only included patients with narcolepsy, the results can’t be extrapolated to groups who have other sleep disorders.

Still, “it is worthwhile now to expand beyond the two primary symptoms that are, in my consideration, life threatening: daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. We should also address more of the quality of life and other aspects of narcolepsy, including disturbed nocturnal sleep and sleep quality issues related to that,” he said.

“Being able to address those aspects and say, ‘I have a therapy that clearly helps the multidimensionality of our patients’ is very vindicating,” Dr. Schneider noted.

He was also impressed with the various measures the researchers used, rather than relying just on patient reports, “which are subject to recollection difficulties. This was a nice way to quantify possibly as a diagnostic marker the underlying disruption of sleep, as well as a possible treatment marker to show how well a therapy works.”

“It actually shows a beneficial effect on sleep architecture,” Dr. Schneider said.

The study was funded by Avadel Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Thorpy is a consultant/advisory board member for Avadel, Axsome, Balance Therapeutics, Eisai, Harmony Biosciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, NLS Pharmaceuticals, Suven Life Sciences, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Schneider reports being an adviser and/or on the speakers’ bureau for similar drugs by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Harmony Biosciences.

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

A novel, once-nightly formulation of sodium oxybate is safe and effective for treating both subjective and objective symptoms of narcolepsy, new research suggests. Top-line results from the phase 3 REST-ON trial released earlier this year showed that the agent known as FT218 (Avadel Pharmaceuticals) met all three of its coprimary efficacy endpoints at all three doses assessed (6 g, 7.5 g, and 9 g). Patients receiving the drug showed significantly greater improvements on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I), and mean weekly attacks of cataplexy, compared with those who received placebo.

The new analyses, which focused on key secondary outcomes, showed that all three doses of the novel agent were associated with significant improvements in sleep quality, refreshing nature of sleep, sleep paralysis, disturbed nocturnal sleep, and scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).

Principal investigator Michael J. Thorpy, MD, director of the Sleep-Wake Disorders Center at the Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said in a news release that the results represent “the promise of a potential new treatment strategy for physicians and patients.”

“I am particularly impressed by the consistency of results as early as 3 weeks with only a 6-g dose,” he added.

Dr. Thorpy, who is also a professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, noted that the new formulation will be more convenient for patients. “The advantage of this medication is its once-nightly formulation, so patients don’t need to awaken during the night and can actually have a better night’s sleep,” he said.

Dr. Thorpy presented the study findings at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

FT218 is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has set Oct. 15 as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date.

Forced awakening

Sodium oxybate was first approved by the FDA in 2002 to treat cataplexy in adults with narcolepsy and was expanded in 2005 to also treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). That formulation is indicated for twice-nightly administration, with the second dose taken 2.5-4 hours after the first.

“The need for forced awakening to take the second dose ... may result in noncompliance, which may lead to reduced efficacy and/or mistimed doses,” the investigators noted.

FT218 is a modified-release version of sodium oxybate. A single 6-g dose of the investigational agent “has shown bioequivalent exposure to twice-nightly immediate-release [sodium oxybate] given as two 3-g doses,” wrote the researchers.

It also currently has Orphan Drug Designation from the FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter REST-ON study was conducted from November 2016 to March 2020 and included patients 16 years or older who had narcolepsy type 1 or type 2.

Patients received the active treatment (n = 107; mean age, 30.9 years; 64.5% women) or placebo (n = 105; mean age, 31.6 years; 71.4% women) according to a four-period forced uptitration dosing schedule of 4.5 g for 1 week, 6 g for 2 weeks, 7.5 g for 5 weeks, and 9 g for 5 weeks.

Secondary outcome measures included the ESS, sleep quality/refreshing nature of sleep on a visual analog scale, sleep paralysis and hypnagogic hallucinations on a sleep symptoms diary, disturbed nocturnal sleep on polysomnographic measures, and number of arousals as defined per the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Score Manual.

Reports of adverse events (AEs) were collected from time of informed consent until 7 days after the last dose received.

Improvement across doses

Results showed that, compared with placebo, improvement in disturbed nocturnal sleep from baseline was significantly greater for the active treatment at 6 g at week 3 (mean between-group difference, –11; P < .001), at 7.5 g at week 8 (mean difference, –17.7; P < .001), and at 9 g at week 13 (mean difference, –22.6; P < .001).

The mean difference between the three doses and placebo for reduction in number of arousals was –11.3 (P < .05), –19.4 (P < .001), and –23.7 (P < .001), respectively. And the 6 g at week 3, 7.5 g at week 8, and 9 g at week 13 doses showed significant (P < .001) improvements versus placebo on the ESS (mean difference, –2.1, –3.2, and –3.9, respectively).

All three doses also showed significant improvement in sleep quality and refreshing nature of sleep (P < .001 for all comparisons), as well as improvement of sleep paralysis (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively).

There were no significant differences between FT218 and placebo for improvement in hypnagogic hallucinations. Dr. Thorpy noted that the number of patients with baseline hallucinations “was relatively small,” which may have led to this finding. “Had there been a much larger population with hallucinations, I suspect that we would have seen a statistically significant improvement there as well,” he said.

Generally well tolerated

The investigators noted that FT218 was “generally well tolerated, and the most common adverse reactions were well-known and established sodium oxybate adverse reactions.”

Treatment-related AEs that occurred in more than 2% of the patients receiving FT218 included nausea, dizziness, enuresis, headache, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

Seven serious AEs were reported, including five in those assigned to the active treatment. This included one case each of diabetes inadequate control, paresthesia, perirectal abscess, hypertension, and suicidal ideation. Only the case of suicidal ideation was considered to be a treatment-related AE.

The investigators noted that, although they have not yet delved into subgroup analysis to look for differences among sex, age, or race, they plan to do so in the future.

Overall, the results indicate that “FT218 is an effective agent not only for the major symptoms of sleepiness and cataplexy, but also the quality of sleep at night,” said Dr. Thorpy.

Asked whether he thinks the FDA will approve the drug, he said that it should be “straightforward” because it’s just a different formulation of an already-approved agent. “I very much expect there will not be any problems in this medication being approved,” Dr. Thorpy said.

Benefits ‘sleep architecture’

Commenting on the findings, Logan Schneider, MD, codirector of the Stanford/VA Alzheimer’s Center and clinical assistant professor at the Stanford Sleep Center, Redwood City, Calif., said that the investigators’ focus on these secondary outcomes “was really worthwhile.”

Dr. Schneider, who was not involved in the research, noted that, because the study only included patients with narcolepsy, the results can’t be extrapolated to groups who have other sleep disorders.

Still, “it is worthwhile now to expand beyond the two primary symptoms that are, in my consideration, life threatening: daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. We should also address more of the quality of life and other aspects of narcolepsy, including disturbed nocturnal sleep and sleep quality issues related to that,” he said.

“Being able to address those aspects and say, ‘I have a therapy that clearly helps the multidimensionality of our patients’ is very vindicating,” Dr. Schneider noted.

He was also impressed with the various measures the researchers used, rather than relying just on patient reports, “which are subject to recollection difficulties. This was a nice way to quantify possibly as a diagnostic marker the underlying disruption of sleep, as well as a possible treatment marker to show how well a therapy works.”

“It actually shows a beneficial effect on sleep architecture,” Dr. Schneider said.

The study was funded by Avadel Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Thorpy is a consultant/advisory board member for Avadel, Axsome, Balance Therapeutics, Eisai, Harmony Biosciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, NLS Pharmaceuticals, Suven Life Sciences, and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Schneider reports being an adviser and/or on the speakers’ bureau for similar drugs by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Harmony Biosciences.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic insomnia is often underrecognized and misunderstood in primary care, sleep expert Christopher Lettieri, MD, told attendees at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Too often, medications are the treatment of choice, and when used long term they can perpetuate a problematic cycle, said Dr. Lettieri, professor in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

However, medications alone won’t work without other behavior modifications and they come with potential side effects, he said in his talk. Prescription medications typically don’t treat the cause of the insomnia, just the symptoms.

“In the 15 years I’ve been practicing sleep medicine, I can honestly say I only have a handful of patients that I treat with long-term pharmacotherapy,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He said he typically uses pharmacotherapy only when conservative measures have failed or to help jump-start patients to behavior modifications.

Restricted sleep is a good place to start for chronic insomnia, he continued.

Physicians should ask patients the latest time they can wake up to make it to school, work, etc. If that time is 6 a.m., the goal is to move bedtime back to 10 p.m.–11 p.m. If the patient, however, is unable to sleep until 12:30 a.m., move bedtime there, he said.

Though the 5.5-hour window is not ideal, it’s better to get into bed when ready for sleep. From there, try to get the patient to move bedtime back 15 minutes each week as they train themselves to fall asleep earlier, he said.

“I promise you this works in the majority of patients and doesn’t require any medication. You can also accomplish this with one or two office visits, so it is not a huge drain on resources,” he said.
 

Sleep specialists in short supply

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is “without question the best way to treat chronic insomnia and it’s recommended as first-line therapy by all published guidelines,” Dr. Lettieri said.

He defined chronic insomnia as happening most nights over at least 3 months. It affects twice as many women as men.

CBT offers a formalized way of changing sleep patterns with the help of an expert in sleep behavior disorders. It combines cognitive therapies with education about sleep and stimulus control and uses techniques such as mindfulness and relaxation.

However, most programs take 4-8 sessions with a sleep medicine provider and are usually not covered by insurance. In addition, the number of insomnia specialists is not nearly adequate to meet demand, he added.

Online and mobile-platform CBT programs are widely effective, Dr. Lettieri said. Many are free and all are convenient for patients to use. He said many of his patients use Sleepio, but many other online programs are effective.

“You can provide sufficient therapy for many of your patients and reserve CBT for patients who can’t be fixed with more conservative measures,” he said.
 

Insomnia among older patients

Interest in helping older patients with insomnia dominated the chat session associated with the talk.

Insomnia increases with age and older patients have often been using prescription or over-the-counter sleep aids for decades.

Additionally, “insomnia is the second-most common reason why people get admitted to long-term care facilities, second only to urinary incontinence,” Dr. Lettieri said.

If physicians use medications with older patients, he said, extra caution is needed. Older people have more neurocognitive impairments than younger adults and may already be taking several other medications. Sleep medications may come with longer elimination half-lives. Polypharmacy may increase risk for falls and have other consequences.

“If you have to go to a medication, try something simple like melatonin,” he said, adding that it should be pharmaceutical grade and extended release.

Also, bright lights during the day, movement throughout the day, and dim lights closer to bedtime are especially important for the elderly, Dr. Lettieri said.

Andrew Corr, MD, a geriatric specialist in primary care with the Riverside (Calif.) Medical Clinic, said in an interview the main message he will take back to his physician group is more CBT and less medication.

He said that, although he has long known CBT is the top first-line treatment, it is difficult to find experts in his area who are trained to do CBT for insomnia, so he was glad to hear online programs and self-directed reading are typically effective.

He also said there’s a common misperception that there’s no harm in prescribing medications such as trazodone (Desyrel), an antidepressant commonly used off label as a sleep aid.

Dr. Lettieri’s talk highlighted his recommendation against using trazodone for sleep. “Despite several recommendations against its use for insomnia, it is still commonly prescribed. You just shouldn’t use it for insomnia,” Dr. Lettieri said.

“It has no measurable effect in a third of patients and at least unacceptable side effects in another third.  Right off the bat, it’s not efficacious in two thirds of patients.”

Additionally, priapism, a prolonged erection, has been associated with trazodone, Dr. Lettieri said, “and I have literally never met a patient on trazodone who was counseled about this.”

Trazodone also has a black box warning from the Food and Drug Administration warning about increased risk for suicidal thoughts.

Dr. Lettieri and Dr. Corr disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Asking a patient who has concerns about memory loss–particular questions can guide referral decisions, according to new research.

Initial questions should zero in on what the patient is forgetting, said Megan Richie, MD, a neurohospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, who spoke to a virtual audience at the American College of Physicians (ACP) annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Is the patient forgetting to buy things in a store, having trouble recalling events, forgetting important dates? How often do these incidents occur?

These questions “will help get at how pervasive and how likely the memory loss is affecting their lives, versus a subjective complaint that doesn’t have much impact on the day-to-day function,” she said.

It’s also important to ask whether other neurocognitive symptoms accompany the memory loss, Dr. Richie noted.

Does the patient search for words, struggle with attention, or have problems with executive function? Does the patient have psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, or other neurologic complaints, including weakness, numbness, vision change, or movement disorders?

“When you know how many neurocognitive symptoms they have, think about how [those symptoms] are affecting their safety and functional status. How are they on their activities of daily living?” Dr. Richie suggests.

Also ask whether the patient is taking medications and whether they drive a vehicle. If they do drive, do they get lost?

“These are all going to help you determine the acuity of the workup,” she said.

After a thorough history, cognitive screening is the next consideration.
 

Cognitive screening can be performed in minutes

One of the tests Dr. Richie recommends is the Mini-Cog. It takes 3 minutes to administer and has been formally recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association because it can be completed in the time frame of a Medicare wellness visit, she said.

It entails a three-word recall and clock-drawing test.

Dr. Richie said it’s important to eliminate some key causes first: “Certainly if the patient has signs and symptoms of depression, pseudodementia is a very real and treatable disease you do not want to miss and should consider in these patients,” she pointed out.

Systemic medical conditions can also lead to memory loss.

If there’s an acute component to the complaint, a new infection or medication withdrawal or a side effect could be driving it, so that’s key in questioning.

Dr. Richie explained that the American Academy of Neurology recommends a very limited workup.

“It’s really just to check their thyroid, their vitamin B12 levels, and then a one-time picture of their brain, which can be either MRI or a CT, to look for structural problems or vascular dementia or hydrocephalus, etc.”

“You do not routinely need spinal fluid testing or an EEG,” she emphasized.

Signs that a neurologist should be involved include a rapid decline, signs of potential seizures, or that the patient doesn’t seem safe in their condition.

Neuropsychological testing is helpful, but it takes nearly 3 hours and may not be a good choice for restless or aggressive patients, Dr. Richie said.

Such testing is often not available, and if it is, insurance coverage is often a barrier because many plans don’t cover it.

Patients often ask about drugs and supplements they see advertised to help with memory loss. Medications are not helpful for mild cognitive impairment, although there is evidence that some are beneficial for patients with dementia, Dr. Richie said.

Celine Goetz, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that it’s easy to relate to the fear that patients and families feel when cognitive impairment begins to emerge.

“[Dr.] Richie’s talk was right on point for internists like myself who see many patients with memory complaints, cognitive impairment, and dementia. I think we’re all terrified of losing our memory and the social and functional impairment that comes with that,” she said.

Although cognitive impairment and dementia aren’t curable or reversible, Dr. Goetz noted, internists can help patients optimize management of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which can affect cognitive function.

Dr. Richie pointed out that some interventions lack evidence for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment, but Dr. Goetz emphasized that resources are plentiful and can be effective in combination.

“Engaging social workers, pharmacists, nutritionists, physical and occupational therapists, and, on the inpatient side, delirium protocols, chaplains, and music therapists make a huge difference in patient care,” she said.

Dr. Richie and Dr. Goetz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Asking a patient who has concerns about memory loss–particular questions can guide referral decisions, according to new research.

Initial questions should zero in on what the patient is forgetting, said Megan Richie, MD, a neurohospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, who spoke to a virtual audience at the American College of Physicians (ACP) annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Is the patient forgetting to buy things in a store, having trouble recalling events, forgetting important dates? How often do these incidents occur?

These questions “will help get at how pervasive and how likely the memory loss is affecting their lives, versus a subjective complaint that doesn’t have much impact on the day-to-day function,” she said.

It’s also important to ask whether other neurocognitive symptoms accompany the memory loss, Dr. Richie noted.

Does the patient search for words, struggle with attention, or have problems with executive function? Does the patient have psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, or other neurologic complaints, including weakness, numbness, vision change, or movement disorders?

“When you know how many neurocognitive symptoms they have, think about how [those symptoms] are affecting their safety and functional status. How are they on their activities of daily living?” Dr. Richie suggests.

Also ask whether the patient is taking medications and whether they drive a vehicle. If they do drive, do they get lost?

“These are all going to help you determine the acuity of the workup,” she said.

After a thorough history, cognitive screening is the next consideration.
 

Cognitive screening can be performed in minutes

One of the tests Dr. Richie recommends is the Mini-Cog. It takes 3 minutes to administer and has been formally recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association because it can be completed in the time frame of a Medicare wellness visit, she said.

It entails a three-word recall and clock-drawing test.

Dr. Richie said it’s important to eliminate some key causes first: “Certainly if the patient has signs and symptoms of depression, pseudodementia is a very real and treatable disease you do not want to miss and should consider in these patients,” she pointed out.

Systemic medical conditions can also lead to memory loss.

If there’s an acute component to the complaint, a new infection or medication withdrawal or a side effect could be driving it, so that’s key in questioning.

Dr. Richie explained that the American Academy of Neurology recommends a very limited workup.

“It’s really just to check their thyroid, their vitamin B12 levels, and then a one-time picture of their brain, which can be either MRI or a CT, to look for structural problems or vascular dementia or hydrocephalus, etc.”

“You do not routinely need spinal fluid testing or an EEG,” she emphasized.

Signs that a neurologist should be involved include a rapid decline, signs of potential seizures, or that the patient doesn’t seem safe in their condition.

Neuropsychological testing is helpful, but it takes nearly 3 hours and may not be a good choice for restless or aggressive patients, Dr. Richie said.

Such testing is often not available, and if it is, insurance coverage is often a barrier because many plans don’t cover it.

Patients often ask about drugs and supplements they see advertised to help with memory loss. Medications are not helpful for mild cognitive impairment, although there is evidence that some are beneficial for patients with dementia, Dr. Richie said.

Celine Goetz, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that it’s easy to relate to the fear that patients and families feel when cognitive impairment begins to emerge.

“[Dr.] Richie’s talk was right on point for internists like myself who see many patients with memory complaints, cognitive impairment, and dementia. I think we’re all terrified of losing our memory and the social and functional impairment that comes with that,” she said.

Although cognitive impairment and dementia aren’t curable or reversible, Dr. Goetz noted, internists can help patients optimize management of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which can affect cognitive function.

Dr. Richie pointed out that some interventions lack evidence for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment, but Dr. Goetz emphasized that resources are plentiful and can be effective in combination.

“Engaging social workers, pharmacists, nutritionists, physical and occupational therapists, and, on the inpatient side, delirium protocols, chaplains, and music therapists make a huge difference in patient care,” she said.

Dr. Richie and Dr. Goetz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Asking a patient who has concerns about memory loss–particular questions can guide referral decisions, according to new research.

Initial questions should zero in on what the patient is forgetting, said Megan Richie, MD, a neurohospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, who spoke to a virtual audience at the American College of Physicians (ACP) annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Is the patient forgetting to buy things in a store, having trouble recalling events, forgetting important dates? How often do these incidents occur?

These questions “will help get at how pervasive and how likely the memory loss is affecting their lives, versus a subjective complaint that doesn’t have much impact on the day-to-day function,” she said.

It’s also important to ask whether other neurocognitive symptoms accompany the memory loss, Dr. Richie noted.

Does the patient search for words, struggle with attention, or have problems with executive function? Does the patient have psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, or other neurologic complaints, including weakness, numbness, vision change, or movement disorders?

“When you know how many neurocognitive symptoms they have, think about how [those symptoms] are affecting their safety and functional status. How are they on their activities of daily living?” Dr. Richie suggests.

Also ask whether the patient is taking medications and whether they drive a vehicle. If they do drive, do they get lost?

“These are all going to help you determine the acuity of the workup,” she said.

After a thorough history, cognitive screening is the next consideration.
 

Cognitive screening can be performed in minutes

One of the tests Dr. Richie recommends is the Mini-Cog. It takes 3 minutes to administer and has been formally recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association because it can be completed in the time frame of a Medicare wellness visit, she said.

It entails a three-word recall and clock-drawing test.

Dr. Richie said it’s important to eliminate some key causes first: “Certainly if the patient has signs and symptoms of depression, pseudodementia is a very real and treatable disease you do not want to miss and should consider in these patients,” she pointed out.

Systemic medical conditions can also lead to memory loss.

If there’s an acute component to the complaint, a new infection or medication withdrawal or a side effect could be driving it, so that’s key in questioning.

Dr. Richie explained that the American Academy of Neurology recommends a very limited workup.

“It’s really just to check their thyroid, their vitamin B12 levels, and then a one-time picture of their brain, which can be either MRI or a CT, to look for structural problems or vascular dementia or hydrocephalus, etc.”

“You do not routinely need spinal fluid testing or an EEG,” she emphasized.

Signs that a neurologist should be involved include a rapid decline, signs of potential seizures, or that the patient doesn’t seem safe in their condition.

Neuropsychological testing is helpful, but it takes nearly 3 hours and may not be a good choice for restless or aggressive patients, Dr. Richie said.

Such testing is often not available, and if it is, insurance coverage is often a barrier because many plans don’t cover it.

Patients often ask about drugs and supplements they see advertised to help with memory loss. Medications are not helpful for mild cognitive impairment, although there is evidence that some are beneficial for patients with dementia, Dr. Richie said.

Celine Goetz, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, told this news organization that it’s easy to relate to the fear that patients and families feel when cognitive impairment begins to emerge.

“[Dr.] Richie’s talk was right on point for internists like myself who see many patients with memory complaints, cognitive impairment, and dementia. I think we’re all terrified of losing our memory and the social and functional impairment that comes with that,” she said.

Although cognitive impairment and dementia aren’t curable or reversible, Dr. Goetz noted, internists can help patients optimize management of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which can affect cognitive function.

Dr. Richie pointed out that some interventions lack evidence for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment, but Dr. Goetz emphasized that resources are plentiful and can be effective in combination.

“Engaging social workers, pharmacists, nutritionists, physical and occupational therapists, and, on the inpatient side, delirium protocols, chaplains, and music therapists make a huge difference in patient care,” she said.

Dr. Richie and Dr. Goetz report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

Physicians and nonphysicians clearly differ in whether or not a PhD or EdD should be able to call themselves ‘doctor,’ a new Medscape poll Who Should Get to Be Called ‘Doctor’? shows. The topic has clearly struck a nerve, since a record number of respondents – over 12,000 – voted in the poll.

Most physicians think it’s appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees such as a PhD or EdD to call themselves ‘doctor,’ although slightly more than half said it depends on the context.

The controversy over who gets to be called a doctor was reignited when a Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticized First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, for wanting to be called “Dr Biden.” The piece also challenged the idea that having a PhD is worth the honorific of ‘doctor.’

Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, disagreed with that viewpoint, saying the context matters. For example, he prefers to be called “professor” when he’s introduced to the public rather than “doctor” to avoid any confusion about his professional status.

More than 12,000 clinicians including physicians, medical students, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals responded to the poll. The non-MD clinicians were the most likely to say it was always appropriate to be called “doctor” while physicians were the least likely.
 

Context matters

Large percentages of clinicians – 54% of doctors, 62% of medical students, and 41% of nurses – said that the context matters for being called “doctor.’’

“I earned my PhD in 1995 and my MD in 2000. I think it is contextual. In a research or University setting, “Dr.” seems appropriate for a PhD. That same person in public should probably not hold themselves out as “Dr.” So, maybe MDs and DOs can choose, while others maintain the title in their specific setting.” 

Some readers proposed that people with MDs call themselves physicians rather than doctors. Said one: “Anyone with a terminal doctorate degree has the right to use the word doctor.  As a physician when someone asks what I do, I say: ‘I am a physician.’ Problem solved. There can only be one physician but there are many types of doctors.”

Physicians and nurses differed most in their views. Just 24% of physicians said it was always appropriate for people with other doctorate degrees to call themselves doctor whereas about an equal number (22%) thought it was never appropriate.

In contrast, 43% of nurses (including advance practice nurses) said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorates to be called doctor. Only 16% said it’s never appropriate. 

This difference may reflect the growing number of nurses with doctorate degrees, either a DNP or PhD, who want to be called doctor in clinical settings.

Age made a difference too. Only 16% of physicians younger than age 45 said it was always appropriate for people with non-MD doctorate degrees to be called doctor, compared with 27% of physicians aged 45 and up.

Medical students (31%) were also more likely than physicians to say it was always appropriate for non-MD doctorates to use the title “doctor” and 64% said it depends on the context. This was noteworthy because twice as many medical students as physicians (16% vs. 8%) said they work in academia, research, or military government settings.
 

Too many ‘doctors’ confuse the public

Physicians (70%) were also more likely to say it was always or often confusing for the public to hear someone without a medical degree addressed as “doctor.” Only 6% of physicians thought it was never or rarely confusing.

Nurses disagreed. Just 45% said that it was always or often confusing while 16% said it was never or rarely confusing.

Medical students were more aligned with physicians on this issue – 60% said it was always or often confusing to the public and just 10% said it was never or rarely confusing.  

One reader commented, “The problem is the confusion the ‘doctor’ title causes for patients, especially in a hospital setting. Is the ‘doctor’ a physician, a pharmacist, a psychologist, a nurse, etc., etc.? We need to think not of our own egos but if and how  the confusion about this plethora of titles may be hindering good patient care.”

These concerns are not unfounded. The American Medical Association reported in its Truth in Advertising campaign that “patients mistake physicians with nonphysician providers” based on an online survey of 802 adults in 2018. The participants thought these specialists were MDs: dentists (61%), podiatrists (67%), optometrists (47%), psychologists (43%), doctors of nursing (39%), and chiropractors (27%).

The AMA has advocated that states pass the “Health Care Professional Transparency Act,” which New Jersey has enacted. The law requires all health care professionals dealing with patients to wear a name tag that clearly identifies their licensure. Health care professionals must also display their education, training, and licensure in their office.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

The Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster developed specifically with variant B.1.351 in mind shows efficacy against that strain and the P1 variant among people already vaccinated for COVID-19, according to first results released May 5.
 

Furthermore, data from the company’s ongoing phase 2 study show the variant-specific booster, known as mRNA-1273.351, achieved higher antibody titers against the B.1.351 variant than did a booster with the original Moderna vaccine.

“We are encouraged by these new data, which reinforce our confidence that our booster strategy should be protective against these newly detected variants. The strong and rapid boost in titers to levels above primary vaccination also clearly demonstrates the ability of mRNA-1273 to induce immune memory,” Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said in a statement.

The phase 2 study researchers also are evaluating a multivariant booster that is a 50/50 mix of mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273, the initial vaccine given Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, in a single vial.

Unlike the two-dose regimen with the original vaccine, the boosters are administered as a single dose immunization.

The trial participants received a booster 6-8 months after primary vaccination. Titers to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus remained high and detectable in 37 out of 40 participants. However, prior to the booster, titers against the two variants of concern, B.1.351 and P.1, were lower, with about half of participants showing undetectable levels.

In contrast, 2 weeks after a booster with the original vaccine or the B.1.351 strain-specific product, pseudovirus neutralizing titers were boosted in all participants and all variants tested.

“Following [the] boost, geometric mean titers against the wild-type, B.1.351, and P.1 variants increased to levels similar to or higher than the previously reported peak titers against the ancestral (D614G) strain following primary vaccination,” the company stated.

Both mRNA-1273.351 and mRNA-1273 booster doses were generally well tolerated, the company reported. Safety and tolerability were generally comparable to those reported after the second dose of the original vaccine. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, with injection site pain most common in both groups. Participants also reported fatigue, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia.

The company plans to release data shortly on the booster efficacy at additional time points beyond 2 weeks for mRNA-1273.351, a lower-dose booster with mRNA-1272/351, as well as data on the multivariant mRNA vaccine booster.

In addition to the company’s phase 2 study, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is conducting a separate phase 1 study of mRNA-1273.351.

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

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

When caring for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, prioritizing patient goals is more effective and efficient than trying to address each condition in isolation, said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.

“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.

“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”

For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.

“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”


 

What is patient priorities care?

Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.

“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”

In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
 

How electronic health records can help

In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.

“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”

She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
 

Systemic obstacles and solutions

According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.

I’ve taken care of both Bill and his wife for a few years. They’re a sweet couple, each with their own neurological issues. Bill has also battled depression on and off over time. He can be a challenge, and I’ve never envied his psychiatrist.

Bill committed suicide in the final week of April.

Patient deaths are unavoidable in medicine. It’s part of the job. Suicides, though less common, also happen. Sometimes they’re related to a sad diagnosis we’ve made, but more commonly (as in Bill’s case) they result from demons we had no control over.

I had a patient commit suicide about 6 months after I started my practice, and probably average one every 2 years (that I hear about) since then. They’re still the deaths that surprise me the most, make me take pause for a few minutes, even after doing this for 23 years.

Suicide is as old as humanity, and gets worse during difficult societal and economic times. It disproportionately affects doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and police officers, and leaves devastated families and friends in its wake.

Death because of the progression of time and disease is never easy, but perhaps more psychologically acceptable to those left behind. Death because of a tragic accident at any age is more difficult.

But when the person involved makes a conscious decision to end his or her own life, the effects on those left behind are terrible. Wondering why, questioning if they could have done something different, and, as with any loss, grieving.

Suicide remains extremely difficult to prevent. In a world where major advances have been made in many areas of medicine, including mental health, death from despair shows no sign of abating.

Maybe it’s part of the price of sentience and reason. Or civilization. I doubt it will ever stop being a public health issue, no matter how many other diseases we cure.

But, as I write a letter to Bill’s wife, that’s little consolation for those they’ve left behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve taken care of both Bill and his wife for a few years. They’re a sweet couple, each with their own neurological issues. Bill has also battled depression on and off over time. He can be a challenge, and I’ve never envied his psychiatrist.

Bill committed suicide in the final week of April.

Patient deaths are unavoidable in medicine. It’s part of the job. Suicides, though less common, also happen. Sometimes they’re related to a sad diagnosis we’ve made, but more commonly (as in Bill’s case) they result from demons we had no control over.

I had a patient commit suicide about 6 months after I started my practice, and probably average one every 2 years (that I hear about) since then. They’re still the deaths that surprise me the most, make me take pause for a few minutes, even after doing this for 23 years.

Suicide is as old as humanity, and gets worse during difficult societal and economic times. It disproportionately affects doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and police officers, and leaves devastated families and friends in its wake.

Death because of the progression of time and disease is never easy, but perhaps more psychologically acceptable to those left behind. Death because of a tragic accident at any age is more difficult.

But when the person involved makes a conscious decision to end his or her own life, the effects on those left behind are terrible. Wondering why, questioning if they could have done something different, and, as with any loss, grieving.

Suicide remains extremely difficult to prevent. In a world where major advances have been made in many areas of medicine, including mental health, death from despair shows no sign of abating.

Maybe it’s part of the price of sentience and reason. Or civilization. I doubt it will ever stop being a public health issue, no matter how many other diseases we cure.

But, as I write a letter to Bill’s wife, that’s little consolation for those they’ve left behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve taken care of both Bill and his wife for a few years. They’re a sweet couple, each with their own neurological issues. Bill has also battled depression on and off over time. He can be a challenge, and I’ve never envied his psychiatrist.

Bill committed suicide in the final week of April.

Patient deaths are unavoidable in medicine. It’s part of the job. Suicides, though less common, also happen. Sometimes they’re related to a sad diagnosis we’ve made, but more commonly (as in Bill’s case) they result from demons we had no control over.

I had a patient commit suicide about 6 months after I started my practice, and probably average one every 2 years (that I hear about) since then. They’re still the deaths that surprise me the most, make me take pause for a few minutes, even after doing this for 23 years.

Suicide is as old as humanity, and gets worse during difficult societal and economic times. It disproportionately affects doctors, dentists, veterinarians, and police officers, and leaves devastated families and friends in its wake.

Death because of the progression of time and disease is never easy, but perhaps more psychologically acceptable to those left behind. Death because of a tragic accident at any age is more difficult.

But when the person involved makes a conscious decision to end his or her own life, the effects on those left behind are terrible. Wondering why, questioning if they could have done something different, and, as with any loss, grieving.

Suicide remains extremely difficult to prevent. In a world where major advances have been made in many areas of medicine, including mental health, death from despair shows no sign of abating.

Maybe it’s part of the price of sentience and reason. Or civilization. I doubt it will ever stop being a public health issue, no matter how many other diseases we cure.

But, as I write a letter to Bill’s wife, that’s little consolation for those they’ve left behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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

The Food and Drug Administration could expand the use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to teens early next week, The New York Times and CNN reported, both citing unnamed officials familiar with the agency’s plans.

In late March, Pfizer submitted data to the FDA showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12 to 15. Their vaccine  is already authorized for use teens and adults ages 16 and older.

The move would make about 17 million more Americans eligible for vaccination and would be a major step toward getting both adolescents and teens back into classrooms full time by next fall.

“Across the globe, we are longing for a normal life. This is especially true for our children. The initial results we have seen in the adolescent studies suggest that children are particularly well protected by vaccination, which is very encouraging given the trends we have seen in recent weeks regarding the spread of the B.1.1.7 U.K. variant,” Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of Pfizer partner BioNTech, said in a March 31 press release.

Getting schools fully reopened for in-person learning has been a goal of both the Trump and Biden administrations, but it has been tricky to pull off, as some parents and teachers have been reluctant to return to classrooms with so much uncertainty about the risk and the role of children in spreading the virus.

A recent study of roughly 150,000 school-aged children in Israel found that while kids under age 10 were unlikely to catch or spread the virus as they reentered classrooms. Older children, though, were a different story. The study found that children ages 10-19 had risks of catching the virus that were as high as adults ages 20-60.

The risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 rises with age.

Children and teens are at relatively low risk from severe outcomes after a COVID-19 infection compared to adults, but they can catch it and some will get really sick with it, especially if they have an underlying health condition, like obesity or asthma that makes them more vulnerable.

Beyond the initial infection, children can get a rare late complication called MIS-C, that while treatable, can be severe and requires hospitalization. Emerging reports also suggest there are some kids that become long haulers in much the same way adults do, dealing with lingering problems for months after they first get sick.

As new variants of the coronavirus circulate in the United States, some states have seen big increases in the number of children and teens with COVID. In Michigan, for example, which recently dealt with a spring surge of cases dominated by the B.1.1.7 variant, cases in children and teens quadrupled in April compared to February.

Beyond individual protection, vaccinating children and teens has been seen as important to achieving strong community protection, or herd immunity, against the new coronavirus.

If the FDA expands the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will likely meet to review data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The committee may then vote on new recommendations for use of the vaccine in the United States.

Not everyone agrees with the idea that American adolescents, who are at relatively low risk of bad outcomes, could get access to COVID vaccines ahead of vulnerable essential workers and seniors in other parts of the world that are still fighting the pandemic with little access to vaccines.

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