CHEST Physician

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

The same dye that gives Twinkies their yellowish hue could be the key to invisibility. 

Applying the dye to lab mice made their skin temporarily transparent, allowing Stanford University researchers to observe the rodents’ digestive system, muscle fibers, and blood vessels, according to a study published in Science.

“It’s a stunning result,” said senior author Guosong Hong, PhD, who is assistant professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford University in California. “If the same technique could be applied to humans, it could offer a variety of benefits in biology, diagnostics, and even cosmetics.” 

The work drew upon optical concepts first described in the early 20th century to form a surprising theory: Applying a light-absorbing substance could render skin transparent by reducing the chaotic scattering of light as it strikes proteins, fats, and water in tissue. 

A search for a suitable light absorber led to FD&C Yellow 5, also called tartrazine, a synthetic color additive certified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in foods, cosmetics, and medications. 

Rubbed on live mice (after areas of fur were removed using a drugstore depilatory cream), tartrazine rendered skin on their bellies, hind legs, and heads transparent within 5 minutes. With the naked eye, the researchers watched a mouse’s intestines, bladder, and liver at work. Using a microscope, they observed muscle fibers and saw blood vessels in a living mouse’s brain — all without making incisions. Transparency faded quickly when the dye was washed off.

Someday, the concept could be used in doctors’ offices and hospitals, Dr. Hong said. 

“Instead of relying on invasive biopsies, doctors might be able to diagnose deep-seated tumors by simply examining a person’s tissue without the need for invasive surgical removal,” he said. “This technique could potentially make blood draws less painful by helping phlebotomists easily locate veins under the skin. It could also enhance procedures like laser tattoo removal by allowing more precise targeting of the pigment beneath the skin.”
 

From Cake Frosting to Groundbreaking Research

Yellow 5 food dye can be found in everything from cereal, soda, spices, and cake frosting to lipstick, mouthwash, shampoo, dietary supplements, and house paint. Although it’s in some topical medications, more research is needed before it could be used in human diagnostics, said Christopher J. Rowlands, PhD, a senior lecturer in the Department of Bioengineering at Imperial College London, England, where he studies biophotonic instrumentation — ways to image structures inside the body more quickly and clearly. 

But the finding could prove useful in research. In a commentary published in Science, Dr. Rowlands and his colleague Jon Gorecki, PhD, an experimental optical physicist also at Imperial College London, noted that the dye could be an alternative to other optical clearing agents currently used in lab studies, such as glycerol, fructose, or acetic acid. Advantages are the effect is reversible and works at lower concentrations with fewer side effects. This could broaden the types of studies possible in lab animals, so researchers don’t have to rely on naturally transparent creatures like nematodes and zebrafish. 

The dye could also be paired with imaging techniques such as MRI or electron microscopy. 

“Imaging techniques all have pros and cons,” Dr. Rowlands said. “MRI can see all the way through the body albeit with limited resolution and contrast. Electron microscopy has excellent resolution but limited compatibility with live tissue and penetration depth. Optical microscopy has subcellular resolution, the ability to label things, excellent biocompatibility but less than 1 millimeter of penetration depth. This clearing method will give a substantial boost to optical imaging for medicine and biology.”

The discovery could improve the depth imaging equipment can achieve by tenfold, according to the commentary. 

Brain research especially stands to benefit. “Neurobiology in particular will have great use for combinations of multiphoton, optogenetics, and tissue clearing to record and control neural activity over (potentially) the whole mouse brain,” he said.
 

Refraction, Absorption, and The Invisible Man

The dye discovery has distant echoes in H.G. Wells’ 1897 novel The Invisible Man, Dr. Rowlands noted. In the book, a serum makes the main character invisible by changing the light scattering — or refractive index (RI) — of his cells to match the air around him.

The Stanford engineers looked to the past for inspiration, but not to fiction. They turned to a concept first described in the 1920s called the Kramers-Kronig relations, a mathematical principle that can be applied to relationships between the way light is refracted and absorbed in different materials. They also read up on Lorentz oscillation, which describes how electrons and atoms inside molecules react to light. 

They reasoned that light-absorbing compounds could equalize the differences between the light-scattering properties of proteins, lipids, and water that make skin opaque. 

With that, the search was on. The study’s first author, postdoctoral researcher Zihao Ou, PhD, began testing strong dyes to find a candidate. Tartrazine was a front-runner. 

“We found that dye molecules are more efficient in raising the refractive index of water than conventional RI-matching agents, thus resulting in transparency at a much lower concentration,” Dr. Hong said. “The underlying physics, explained by the Lorentz oscillator model and Kramers-Kronig relations, reveals that conventional RI matching agents like fructose are not as efficient because they are not ‘colored’ enough.”
 

What’s Next

Though the dye is already in products that people consume and apply to their skin, medical use is years away. In some people, tartrazine can cause skin or respiratory reactions. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF), which helped fund the research, posted a home or classroom activity related to the work on its website. It involves painting a tartrazine solution on a thin slice of raw chicken breast, making it transparent. The experiment should only be done while wearing a mask, eye protection, lab coat, and lab-quality nitrile gloves for protection, according to the NSF.

Meanwhile, Dr. Hong said his lab is looking for new compounds that will improve visibility through transparent skin, removing a red tone seen in the current experiments. And they’re looking for ways to induce cells to make their own “see-through” compounds. 

“We are exploring methods for cells to express intensely absorbing molecules endogenously, enabling genetically encoded tissue transparency in live animals,” he said.

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

First-line treatment with ivonescimab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), compared with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial. 

“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China, 

The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC. 

Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial. 

Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.

Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater). 

Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001). 

The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55). 

The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study. 

Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%). 

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.

The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab. 

In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).

Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said. 

Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.

He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”

Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025. 

HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more). 

Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

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

First-line treatment with ivonescimab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), compared with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial. 

“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China, 

The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC. 

Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial. 

Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.

Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater). 

Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001). 

The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55). 

The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study. 

Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%). 

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.

The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab. 

In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).

Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said. 

Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.

He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”

Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025. 

HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more). 

Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

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

First-line treatment with ivonescimab led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), compared with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to recent findings from the HARMONi-2 trial. 

“This is the first randomized, phase 3 study to demonstrate a clinically significant improvement in efficacy with a novel drug compared to pembrolizumab in advanced NSCLC,” said study investigator Caicun Zhou, MD, PhD, with Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital in China, 

The results highlight ivonescimab’s potential to become a “new standard of care” in advanced PD-L1–positive advanced NSCLC, said Dr. Zhou, who presented the analysis at the annual International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer in San Diego. Dr. Zhou is president-elect of the IASLC. 

Ivonescimab (AK112) is a novel, potentially first-in-class investigational bispecific antibody that targets PD-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) developed by Akeso Biopharma, which funded the HARMONi-2 trial. 

Conducted at 55 centers in China, HARMONi-2 enrolled 398 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, PD-L1 positive (with at least 1% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1), and no EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements.

Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive ivonescimab (20 mg/kg) or pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks. The two groups were well balanced, and randomization was stratified by histology (squamous vs nonsquamous), clinical stage (IIIB/IIIC vs IV) and PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 of 1%-49% vs 50% or greater). 

Dr. Zhou reported that patients who received ivonescimab were progression free for nearly twice as long as those on pembrolizumab — a median of 11.1 vs 5.8 months, indicating a 49% lower risk for progression or death (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001). 

The meaningful improvement in PFS with ivonescimab, compared with pembrolizumab, was “broadly consistent” in all prespecified subgroups, Dr. Zhou noted. That included patients with squamous NSCLC (HR, 0.48) and nonsquamous NSCLC (HR, 0.54), those with PD-L1 expression of 1%-49% (HR, 0.54) and 50% or higher (HR, 0.46), as well as those with liver metastases (HR, 0.47) and brain metastases (HR, 0.55). 

The PFS benefit seen with ivonescimab in HARMONi-2 is “striking,” and the results “highlight the potential benefits of combined VEGF and PD-1 blockade together,” said John Heymach, MD, with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who served as discussant for the study. 

Ivonescimab also led to a higher objective response rate (50% vs 38.5%) and disease control rate (89.9% vs 70.5%). 

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in more patients receiving ivonescimab — 29.4% vs 15.6% on pembrolizumab. The difference largely stemmed from higher rates of proteinuria, hypertension, and lab abnormalities.

The rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups —20.8% in the ivonescimab group and 16.1% in the pembrolizumab group. Rates of grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were also similar, occurring in 7% of patients treated with ivonescimab and 8% of those receiving pembrolizumab. 

In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, in particular, ivonescimab demonstrated a “very manageable” safety profile, Dr. Zhou noted. In this group, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22.2% of patients (vs 18.7% receiving pembrolizumab).

Ivonescimab was associated with comparable but “numerically better” time to deterioration of global health status, based on the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire, Dr. Zhou said. 

Although the “really impressive and clinically meaningful” PFS benefits extended across different subgroups, “we await the overall survival results and additional studies done outside of China to confirm the benefit seen,” Dr. Heymach noted.

He also cautioned that, for patients with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression (1%-49%), pembrolizumab monotherapy “would not be the relevant comparator in the US and the rest of the world, and different study designs are going to be required for those populations.”

Based on the results of HARMONi-2, Akeso’s partner, Summit Therapeutics, plans to initiate HARMONi-7 in early 2025. 

HARMONi-7 is currently planned as a multiregional, phase 3 clinical trial that will compare ivonescimab monotherapy to pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors have high PD-L1 expression (50% or more). 

Dr. Zhou has received consulting fees from Qilu Pharmaceutical, Hengrui, and TopAlliance Biosciences and honoraria from Eli Lilly China, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, Luye Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart Therapeutics. Dr. Heymach is a consultant for AbbVie, AnHeart Therapeutics, ArriVent Biopharma, AstraZeneca, BioCurity Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The presence of an operational classification of drug interactions (ORCA) class 3 or 4 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) did not increase the risk for colchicine-related gastrointestinal adverse events or modify the effect of colchicine on death or hospitalization caused by COVID-19 infection in ambulatory patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• This secondary analysis of the COLCORONA trial aimed to evaluate if a potential DDI of colchicine was associated with changes in its pharmacokinetics or modified its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with COVID-19.
• Overall, 4432 ambulatory patients with COVID-19 (median age, 54 years; 54% women) were randomly assigned to receive colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0.5 mg once daily for 27 days (n = 2205) or a placebo (n = 2227).
• All the participants had at least one high-risk criterion such as age ≥ 70 years, diabetes, heart failure, systolic blood pressure ≥ 150 mm Hg, respiratory disease, coronary disease, body temperature ≥ 38.4 °C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or high neutrophil count with low lymphocyte count.
• The medications that could interact with colchicine were determined and categorized under ORCA classes 1 (contraindicated), 2 (provisionally contraindicated), 3 (conditional use), or 4 (minimal risk).
• The primary outcome was any gastrointestinal adverse event assessed over a 30-day follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among all the participants, 1% received medications with an ORCA class 2 interaction, 14% with a class 3 interaction, and 13% with a class 4 interaction; rosuvastatin (12%) and atorvastatin (10%) were the most common interacting medications.
• The odds of any gastrointestinal adverse event were 1.80 times and 1.68 times higher in the colchicine arm than in the placebo arm among those without and with a DDI, respectively, with the effect of colchicine being consistent regardless of the presence of drug interactions (P = .69 for interaction).
• Similarly, DDIs did not influence the effect of colchicine on combined risk for COVID-19 hospitalization or mortality (P = .80 for interaction).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once potential DDIs have been identified through screening, they must be tested,” Hemalkumar B. Mehta, PhD, and G. Caleb Alexander, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, wrote in an invited commentary published online in JAMA Network Open. “Theoretical DDIs may not translate into real-world harms,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lama S. Alfehaid, PharmD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

This study focused on the medications used by participants at baseline, which may not have captured all potential DDIs. The findings did not provide information on rare adverse events, such as rhabdomyolysis, which usually occur months after initiating drug therapy. Furthermore, all the study participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may have increased their susceptibility to adverse reactions associated with the use of colchicine.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, and other sources. The authors also declared serving on advisory boards or on the board of directors; receiving personal fees, grants, research support, or speaking fees; or having other ties with many pharmaceutical companies.

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

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

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

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

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

I suspect that many of you have seen or read about a recent study regarding the “long COVID” enigma. The investigators surveyed the records of more than 4000 pediatric patients who had been infected and nearly 1400 who had not. The researchers then developed models in which 14 symptoms were more common in previous SARS-CoV2–infected individuals in all age groups, compared with the uninfected. There were four additional symptoms in children only and three additional symptoms in the adolescents.

Using these data, the investigators created research indices that “correlated with poor overall health and quality of life” and emphasized “neurocognitive, pain, and gastrointestinal symptoms in school-age children” and a “change or loss in smell or taste, pain, and fatigue/malaise-related symptoms in adolescents.”

So now thanks to these investigators we have research indices for characterizing PASC (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, aka. long COVID). What should we to do with them? I’m not sure these results move us any further if our goal is finding something to help patients who believe, or have been told, that they have long COVID.

Even to a non-statistician like myself there appear to be some problems with this study. In an editorial accompanying this study, Suchitra Rao, MBBS, MSCS in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted the study has the potential for ascertainment bias. For example, the researchers’ subject recruitment procedure resulted in a higher “proportion of neurocognitive/behavioral manifestations” may have skewed the results.

Also, some of the patient evaluations were not done at a consistent interval after the initial infection, which could result in recall bias. And, more importantly, because there were no baseline measurements to determine preinfection status, the investigators had no way of determining to what degree the patients’ underlying conditions may have reflected the quality of life scores.

Although I wouldn’t consider it a bias, I wonder if the investigators have a preconceived vision of what long COVID is going to look like once it is better understood. The fact that they undertook this project suggests that they believe the truth about the phenomenon will be discoverable using data based on collections of vague symptoms.

Or, do the researchers share my vision of long COVID that if it exists it will be something akin to the burst of Parkinson’s disease seen decades later in survivors of the 1918-1920 flu pandemic. Or, maybe it is something like post-polio syndrome, in which survivors in childhood develop atrophy and muscle weakness as they age. Do the researchers believe that COVID survivors are harboring some remnant of SARS-CoV-2 or its genome inside their bodies ticking like a time bomb ready to surface in the future? Think shingles.

I suspect that there are some folks who may or not share my ticking time bomb vision, but who, like me, wonder if there is really such a thing as long COVID – at least one in the form characterized by the work of these investigators. Unfortunately, the $1 billion the National Institutes of Health has invested in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) initiative is not going to discover delayed sequelae until time is ready to tell us. What researchers are looking at now is a collection of patients, some who were not well to begin with but now describe a collection of vague symptoms, some of which are unique to COVID, but most are not. The loss of taste and smell being the one notable and important exception.

It is easy to understand why patients and their physicians would like to have a diagnosis like “long COVID” to at least validate their symptoms that up until now have eluded explanation or remedy. Not surprisingly, they may feel that, if researchers can’t find a cure, let’s at least have something we can lay the blame on.

A major flaw in this current attempt to characterize long COVID is the lack of a true control group. Yes, the subjects the researchers labeled as “uninfected” lived contemporaneously with the patients unfortunate enough to have acquired the virus. However, this illness was mysterious from its first appearance, continued to be more frightening as we struggled to learn more about it, and was clumsily managed in a way that turned our way of life upside down. This was particularly true for school-age children. It unmasked previously unsuspected underlying conditions and quickly acquired a poorly documented reputation for having a “long” variety.

Of course the “uninfected” also lived through these same tumultuous times. But knowing that you harbored, and may still harbor, this mysterious invader moves the infected and their families into a whole new level of concern and anxiety the rest of us who were more fortunate don’t share.

We must not ignore the fact that patients and their caregivers may receive some comfort when they have something to blame for their symptoms. However, we must shift our focus away from blame hunting, which up to this point has been fruitless. Instead, we must invest our energies into helping those struggling with long COVID find a manageable pathway toward improvement. Each patient should be treated as an individual and not part of a group with similar symptoms cobbled together with data acquired under a cloud of bias.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

A surprising new report by the Mercer consulting firm projects that the American healthcare workforce will face a small shortfall in 2028 — a shortage of less than 1% of all employees. The report even projects a surplus of tens of thousands of registered nurses and home health aides — and even a small surplus of physicians in some states.

Mercer’s projections are rosier than federal workforce projections, which paint a grimmer picture of impending shortages.

“The labor market is a little more stabilized right now, and most healthcare systems are seeing less turnover,” Dan Lezotte, PhD, a partner with Mercer, said in an interview. But he noted “critical shortages” are still expected in some areas.

Mercer last projected workforce numbers in a 2020-2021 report released during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, “the labor market is drastically different,” Dr. Lezotte said. Health workforce shortages and surpluses have long varied significantly by region across the country.

The report forecasts a small surplus of physicians in 2028 but not in states such as California, New York, and Texas. The upper Midwest states will largely see doctor surpluses while Southern states face shortages. Some states with general physician surpluses may still experience shortages of specialists.

A surplus of nearly 30,000 registered nurses is expected, but New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are projected to have a combined shortage of 16,000 nurses.

Overall, the report projects a shortage of more than 100,000 healthcare workers nationally by 2028. That’s less than 1% of the entire healthcare workforce of 18.6 million expected by then.

The report also predicts a shortage of nurse practitioners, especially in California and New York, and a shortage of 73,000 nursing assistants, especially in California, New York, and Texas.

“Healthcare systems are having the most difficulty hiring and hanging on to those workers who are supposed to take up the load off physicians and nurses,” Dr. Lezotte said. “They’re competing not only with other healthcare systems but with other industries like Amazon warehouses or McDonald’s in California paying $20 an hour. Healthcare was a little slow to keep up with that. In a lot of healthcare systems, that’s their biggest headache right now.”

On the other hand, the report projects a national surplus of 48,000 home health/personal care aides.

That surprised Bianca K. Frogner, PhD, director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“We are seeing increasing movement of investments toward moving patients out of skilled nursing facilities and keeping them in the home and community, which requires many more home health aides,” Dr. Frogner said. “Given such high turnover in this occupation, it’s hard to know if the surplus is really a surplus or if they will quickly be employed.”

Dr. Frogner receives grants and contracts from not-for-profit entities to investigate issues related to the health workforce.

Dr. Lezotte said the report’s findings are based on data from sources such as public and private databases and job postings. According to the report, “projections were made up to 2028 based on historical data up to 2023,” and “supply projections were derived using a linear autoregressive model based on historical supply within each occupation and geography.”

It’s not clear why some states like New York are expected to have huge shortages, but migration might be a factor, along with a lack of nearby nursing schools, Dr. Lezotte said.

As for shortages, Dr. Lezotte said healthcare systems will have to understand their local workforce situation and adapt. “They’ll need to be more proactive about their employee value proposition” via competitive pay and benefits Flexibility regarding scheduling is also important.

“They’re going to have to figure out how to up their game,” he said.

What about states with surpluses? They might be target-rich environments for states facing shortages, he said.
 

Positive Outlook Not Shared by Other Researchers

Other workforce projections conflict with Mercer’s, according to Jean Moore, DrPH, and Gaetano Forte, MS, director and assistant director of the Center for Health Workforce Studies, School of Public Health, University at Albany, New York.

The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects a 10% shortage of registered nurses and a 13% shortage of physicians in 2031. The agency didn’t make projections for home health aides because that workforce is in flux.

Why are Mercer’s projections so different? Dr. Lezotte said other projections assume that equity efforts will bring healthcare to everyone who needs it. The report assumes this won’t happen, he said. As a result, it expects there will be fewer patients who need to be served by workers.

Other projections expect a shortage of 300,000 registered nurses by 2035, Mr. Forte said. But the number of nurse practitioners in New York is growing quickly, Dr. Moore said.

Dr. Moore said it’s difficult to interpret Mercer’s findings because the company doesn’t provide enough information about its methodology.

“At some level, it’s not particularly useful regarding what the next steps are,” she said. “Projections should make you think about what you should do to change and improve, to create more of what you need.”

The Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Albany has provided consulting services to multiple companies that provide healthcare workforce projections. It has no relationship with Mercer.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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