Mixed Topics

The American College of Physicians has issued new guidelines for managing acute major depressive disorder, suggesting those with moderate to severe depression may start with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone or a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) alone.

The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.

These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.

More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.

Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”

This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.

First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.

Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.

“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.

The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.

“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.

The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.

“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.

Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.

A timely update

“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.

“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.

“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”

Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.

Valuable despite the gaps

Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.

“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.

“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.

They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”

After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”

Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.

“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.

This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.

“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”

Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.

The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.

Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.

“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.

Financial costs remain unclear

Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.

In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.

For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.

“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”

When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.

The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.

The American College of Physicians has issued new guidelines for managing acute major depressive disorder, suggesting those with moderate to severe depression may start with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone or a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) alone.

The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.

These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.

More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.

Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”

This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.

First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.

Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.

“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.

The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.

“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.

The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.

“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.

Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.

A timely update

“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.

“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.

“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”

Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.

Valuable despite the gaps

Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.

“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.

“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.

They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”

After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”

Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.

“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.

This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.

“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”

Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.

The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.

Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.

“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.

Financial costs remain unclear

Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.

In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.

For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.

“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”

When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.

The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.

The American College of Physicians has issued new guidelines for managing acute major depressive disorder, suggesting those with moderate to severe depression may start with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone or a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) alone.

The guidelines also state that patients with mild depression should start with CBT alone, and if a patient with moderate to severe depression prefers, they can use a combination of both CBT and an SGA.

These nuanced recommendations contrast sharply with the 2016 ACP guidelines for depression, which lumped all stages and severity levels together, and came with just one recommendation: Clinicians should choose between CBT and an SGA.

More data have come to light over the years, requiring the present update, reported lead author Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president of Clinical Policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP, and adjunct faculty at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In addition to the focus on acute depression, Dr. Qaseem and colleagues highlighted the new guidelines' “consideration of patient values and preferences, and costs,” as well as responses to therapy.

Recommendations were derived from a network meta-analysis that included studies evaluating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, the authors wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. They compared effectiveness across a range of SGAs, “including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; and others such as bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, trazodone, vilazodone, and vortioxetine.”

This analysis yielded three pieces of clinical advice.

First, patients in the acute phase of mild depression should receive CBT alone as their initial treatment.

Dr. Qaseem and colleagues noted that many depression studies for pharmacologic therapies excluded these patients in favor of those with moderate to severe depression, leaving an evidence gap.

“Furthermore, the Clinical Guidelines Committee had concerns about adverse effects of SGAs in these patients and suggests that the use of SGAs as initial treatment of these patients should be based on additional considerations, such as limited access to or cost of CBT, history of moderate or severe major depressive disorder, or patient preferences,” they added.

The committee’s next recommendation, based on moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that CBT alone or an SGA alone should be considered for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe depression. This call for monotherapy is balanced by a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence that the same group may benefit from initial combination therapy with both CBT and an SGA.

“The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with CBT versus SGAs, or combination therapy, should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients’ specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences,” the guidelines state.

The third and final recommendation offers an algorithm for patients who do not respond to initial therapy with an SGA. Multiple pathways are provided: Switch to CBT or augment with CBT; or switch to a different SGA or augment with a second pharmacologic therapy, such as mirtazapine, bupropion, or buspirone.

“These second-line treatment strategies show similar efficacy when compared with each other,” the guidelines committee noted.

Again, the guidelines suggest that second-line choices should be personalized based on the various factors previously discussed.

A timely update

“The new guideline is very different from the last guideline,” said Ryan Mire, MD, president of the ACP and practicing internal medicine physician in Nashville, Tenn. in a written comment. “ACP decided to update the depression guidelines with a focus on acute depression because approximately 70% of patients with major depressive disorder do not achieve remission and remain in the acute phase after the initial pharmacologic treatment attempt. In addition, there is new evidence on second-line treatments since the 2016 ACP guideline was published.”

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed that the guidelines offer a necessary and fresh perspective on caring for patients with depression.

“These guidelines are a helpful update, assuring us that we are using the latest, evidence-based therapies, and [they] are written in a practical, easy-to-implement manner,” Dr. Skolnik said in a written comment.

“First, the guidelines reaffirm that CBT is an effective first-line option, with or without the concurrent use of an SGA,” Dr. Skolnik said, noting that CBT alone may reduce likelihood of recurrence, compared with an SGA alone. “Many patients do not like the idea of medication, or the potential side effects of medications, and CBT is an evidenced-based approach that can be very helpful for patients.”

Dr. Skolnik also applauded the guidelines authors for offering a clear path forward for patients who do not have full remission after treatment – a common clinical scenario.

Valuable despite the gaps

Other experts expressed mixed impressions of the update, noting both highs and lows.

“Although [this guideline] has some gaps, it is more valuable in several ways than other widely consulted practice guidelines for depression,” wrote Miriam Shuchman, MD and Elia Abi-Jaoude, MSc, MD, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in an accompanying editorial.

Specifically, they praised the publication’s focus on shared decision-making in the treatment planning process.

“This effort to respond to patient preferences is crucial and may even increase the chance that patients will improve with treatment,” they wrote.

They also applauded the ACP’s efforts to recuse any committee members who may have had conflicts of interest “that could affect their judgment about treatments for depression.”

After highlighting these attributes, Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude noted that the guidelines still contain “significant gaps.”

Foremost, they pointed out the guidelines' emphasis on CBT to the exclusion of other nonpharmacologic options.

“The guideline does patients a disservice by leaving out several nonmedication treatment options that clinicians can offer as first- or second-line therapies,” they wrote.

This oversight may increase risk that patients simply hop from one SGA to another, which is a common, and often ineffective, strategy, according to Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude.

“Patients often go from one drug to the next in the hopes of landing on one that ‘works,’ ” the editorialists wrote. “This narrow clinical approach of pursuing medication-based treatments ignores the ways difficulties in a person’s work or relationships may contribute to their struggles with depression. At a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of the social context of mental health, clinicians may need to consider other forms of support and tailor prescribing to what is most relevant and accessible for a particular patient.”

Dr. Shuchman and Dr. Abi-Jaoude went on to suggest several nonpharmacologic options beyond CBT, including interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, problem solving, behavioral activation, and guided self-help.

The other key gap they pointed out relates to withdrawal.

Although the guideline does advise physicians to taper antidepressants to reduce risk of withdrawal, the editorialists suggested that this recommendation lacked sufficient emphasis, as it can be a particularly difficult period in the treatment process.

“Tapering of an antidepressant may need to be done over months or years, not weeks, and a patient may need to visit a compounding pharmacy to obtain doses of a second-generation antidepressant not marketed by drug manufacturers so that prescriptions can be tapered even more slowly,” they suggested.

Financial costs remain unclear

Beyond the above medical considerations, one other piece of the depression puzzle remains unsolved: cost.

In a simultaneously published rapid review, Andreea Dobrescu, MD, PhD, of Cochrane Austria, and colleagues evaluated the relative cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies.

For most comparisons, evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion, although they suggested that CBT may be more cost effective at the 5-year mark.

“For most pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for major depressive disorder, evidence was missing or was insufficient to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of first- or second-step treatments for MDD,” Dr. Dobrescu and colleagues wrote. “The strongest evidence (albeit still low certainty of evidence) was for the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with SGA as a first-step treatment over a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, this evidence should also be interpreted cautiously considering it is based on a single study.”

When asked about the financial findings, Dr. Mire agreed that more data are needed, especially because CBT and SGA costs range widely. He suggested that cost, for each patient, should be considered in the personalized approach now highlighted by the new guidelines.

The guidelines and the Cochrane cost-effectiveness study were supported by the ACP. The guidelines' authors and other individuals quoted in this article reported no conflicts of interest.

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³ Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³ Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

Photo: Shutterstock

Six months after the Supreme Court decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, trainees across the United States are asking a critical question in the current resident recruitment season: How will the restrictions on abortion access affect my training as an obstetrician-gynecologist, and will they impact my ability to be the kind of provider I want to be in the future?

Among the myriad of downstream effects to patient care, the Dobbs decision will indisputably impact the scope of residency training for those that provide reproductive health services. Almost half of ObGyn residents train in states that have abortion restrictions in place.¹ New educational milestones for abortion training, which are a requirement by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), were proposed quickly after Dobbs, guiding programs to offer opportunities for training in nonrestricted areas or the “combination of didactic activities, including simulation” to meet the training requirement in abortion care.²

Like many providers, residents already are grappling with precarious and risky circumstances, balancing patient safety and patient-driven care amidst pre-existing and newly enforced abortion restrictions. Whether managing a patient with an undesired pregnancy, severe medical comorbidities, unexpected pregnancy complications such as preterm premature rupture of membranes, or bleeding, or substantial fetal anomalies, ObGyn residents cannot gain the experience of providing the full scope of reproductive health care without the ability to offer all possible management options. While some enacted abortion restrictions have exceptions for the health of or life-saving measures for the mother, there is no standard guidance for timing of interventions, leaving providers confused and in fear of legal retribution. At a time when trainees should be learning to provide patient-centered, evidence-based care, they are instead paralyzed by the legal or professional consequences they may face for offering their best medical judgements.

Furthermore, the lack of exposure to dilation and evacuation procedures for residents in restricted practice areas will undoubtably decrease their confidence in managing acute complications, which is one of the critical facets of residency training. In a surgical field where repetition is crucial for technical competence, highlighted by ACGME minimum case requirements, the decreased volume of abortion procedures is a disadvantage for trainees and a disservice for patients. While anti-choice promoters may argue that involvement in surgical management of early pregnancy loss should suffice for ObGyn training in family planning, this piecemeal approach will leave gaps in technical skills.

The fear of legal ramifications, moral injury, and inadequate surgical training may lead to the siphoning of talented trainees to areas in the country with fewer restrictions.³ Dobbs already has demonstrated how limiting abortion access will deepen inequities in reproductive health care service delivery. Approximately 55% of ObGyn trainees and nearly two-thirds of maternal-fetal medicine graduates join the workforce in the state where they received their training.⁴ Medical students will seek opportunities for high-quality ObGyn training in areas that will help them to be well-prepared, competent physicians—and more often than not, stay in the area or region that they trained in. This will lead to provider shortages in areas where access to reproductive health care and subspecialist providers already is limited, further exacerbating existing health disparities.

During this recruitment season, trainees and residency programs alike will need to reckon with how the ramifications of Dobbs will alter both the immediate and long-term training in comprehensive reproductive health care for the ObGyn workforce. ObGyn trainees have taken a stand in response to the Dobbs decision, and nearly 750 current residents signed onto the statement below as a commitment to high-quality training and patient-centered care. Clinical experience in performing abortions is essential to the provision of comprehensive evidence-based reproductive health care, and access to these procedures is as important for physicians-in-training as it is for patients.

Actions to take to ensure high-quality abortion training in ObGyn residencies include the following:

• Connect with and stay involved with organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) for initiatives, toolkits, and resources for training at your institutions.
• Seek specific abortion training opportunities through the Leadership Training Academy (offered through PRH) or the Abortion Training Institute (offered through MSFC).
• Ensure that your residency program meets the ACGME criteria of providing opportunities for clinical experiences for abortion care and work with program leadership at a program, state, or regional level to enforce these competencies.
• Reach out to your local American Civil Liberties Union or other local reproductive legal rights organizations if you want to be involved with advocacy around abortion access and training but have concerns about legal protections.
• Have a voice at the table for empowering training opportunities by seeking leadership positions through ACOG, ACGME, Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, American Medical Association, Student National Medical Association, and subspecialty organizations.
• Vote in every election and promote voting registration and access to your patients, colleagues, and communities. ●

Continue to: The implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on the health care and wellbeing of our patients...

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

Dermatology residency continues to be one of the most competitive specialties, with a match rate of 84.7% for US allopathic seniors in the 2019-2020 academic year.¹ In the 2019-2020 cycle, dermatology applicants were tied with plastic surgery for the highest median US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score compared with other specialties, which suggests that the top medical students are applying, yet only approximately 5 of 6 students are matching.

Factors that have been cited with successful dermatology matching include USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores,² research accomplishments,³ letters of recommendation,⁴ medical school performance, personal statement, grades in required clerkships, and volunteer/extracurricular experiences, among others.⁵

The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) publishes data each year regarding different academic factors—USMLE scores; number of abstracts, presentations, and papers; work, volunteer, and research experiences—and compares the mean between matched and nonmatched applicants.¹ However, the USMLE does not report any demographic information of the applicants and the implication it has for matching. Additionally, the number of couples participating in the couples match continues to increase each year. In the 2019-2020 cycle, 1224 couples participated in the couples match.¹ However, NRMP reports only limited data regarding the couples match, and it is not specialty specific.

We aimed to determine the characteristics of matched vs nonmatched dermatology applicants. Secondarily, we aimed to determine any differences among demographics regarding matching rates, academic performance, and research publications. We also aimed to characterize the strategy and outcomes of applicants that couples matched.

Materials and Methods

The Mayo Clinic institutional review board deemed this study exempt. All applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residency in Scottsdale, Arizona, during the 2018-2019 cycle were emailed an initial survey (N=475) before Match Day that obtained demographic information, geographic information, gap-year information, USMLE Step 1 score, publications, medical school grades, number of away rotations, and number of interviews. A follow-up survey gathering match data and couples matching data was sent to the applicants who completed the first survey on Match Day. The survey was repeated for the 2019-2020 cycle. In the second survey, Step 2 CK data were obtained. The survey was sent to 629 applicants who applied to Mayo Clinic dermatology residencies in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to include a broader group of applicants. For publications, applicants were asked to count only published or accepted manuscripts, not abstracts, posters, conference presentations, or submitted manuscripts. Applicants who did not respond to the second survey (match data) were not included in that part of the analysis. One survey was excluded because of implausible answers (eg, scores outside of range for USMLE Step scores).

Statistical Analysis—For statistical analyses, the applicants from both applications cycles were combined. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of mean, median, or counts (percentages), as applicable. Means were compared using 2-sided t tests. Group comparisons were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the BlueSky Statistics version 6.30. P<.05 was considered significant.

Results

In 2019, a total of 149 applicants completed the initial survey (31.4% response rate), and 112 completed the follow-up survey (75.2% response rate). In 2020, a total of 142 applicants completed the initial survey (22.6% response rate), and 124 completed the follow-up survey (87.3% response rate). Combining the 2 years, after removing 1 survey with implausible answers, there were 290 respondents from the initial survey and 235 from the follow-up survey. The median (SD) age for the total applicants over both years was 27 (3.0) years, and 180 applicants were female (61.9%).

USMLE Scores—The median USMLE Step 1 score was 250, and scores ranged from 196 to 271. The median USMLE Step 2 CK score was 257, and scores ranged from 213 to 281. Higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores and more interviews were associated with higher match rates (Table 1). In addition, students with a dermatology program at their medical school were more likely to match than those without a home dermatology program.

Gender Differences—There were 180 females and 110 males who completed the surveys. Males and females had similar match rates (85.2% vs 89.0%; P=.39)(Table 2).

Family Life—In comparing marital status, applicants who were divorced had a higher median age (38.5 years) compared with applicants who were single, married, or in a domestic partnership (all 27 years; P<.01). Differences are outlined in Table 3.

On average, applicants with children (n=27 [15 male, 12 female]; P=.13) were 3 years older than those without (30.5 vs 27; P<.01) and were more likely to be married (88.9% vs 21.5%; P<.01). Applicants with children had a mean USMLE Step 1 score of 241 compared to 251 for those without children (P=.02) and a mean USMLE Step 2 CK score of 246 compared to 258 for those without children (P<.01). Applicants with children had similar debt, number of publications, number of honored rotations, and match rates compared to applicants without children (Figure).

Couples Match—Seventeen individuals in our survey participated in the couples match (7.8%), and all 17 (100%) matched into dermatology. The mean age was 26.7 years, 12 applicants were female, 2 applicants were married, and 1 applicant had children. The mean number of interviews offered was 13.6, and the mean number of interviews attended was 11.3. This was higher than participants who were not couples matching (13.6 vs 9.8 [P=.02] and 11.3 vs 8.9 [P=.04], respectively). Applicants and their partners applied to programs and received interviews in a mean of 10 cities. Sixteen applicants reported that they contacted programs where their partner had interview offers. All participants’ rank lists included programs located in different cities than their partners’ ranked programs, and all but 1 participant ranked programs located in a different state than their partners’ ranked programs. Fifteen participants had options in their rank list for the applicant not to match, even if the partner would match. Similarly, 12 had the option for the applicant to match, even if the partner would not match. Fourteen (82.4%) matched at the same institution as their significant other. Three (17.6%) applicants matched to a program in a different state than the partner’s matched program. Two (11.8%) participants felt their relationship with their partner suffered because of the match, and 1 (5.9%) applicant was undetermined. One applicant described their relationship suffering from “unnecessary tension and anxiety” and noted “difficult conversations” about potentially matching into dermatology in a different location from their partner that could have been “devastating and not something [he or she] should have to choose.”

Comment

Factors for Matching in Dermatology—In our survey, we found the statistically significant factors of matching into dermatology included high USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores (P<.01), having a home dermatology program (P=.04), and attending a higher number of dermatology interviews (P<.01). These data are similar to NRMP results¹; however, the higher likelihood of matching if the medical school has a home dermatology program has not been reported. This finding could be due to multiple factors such as students have less access to academic dermatologists for research projects, letters of recommendations, mentorship, and clinical rotations.

Gender and having children were factors that had no correlation with the match rate. There was a statistical difference of matching based on marital status (P<.01), but this is likely due to the low number of applicants in the divorced category. There were differences among demographics with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, which is a known factor in matching.^1,2 Applicants with children had lower USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores compared to applicants without children. Females also had lower median USMLE Step 1 scores compared to males. This finding may serve as a reminder to programs when comparing USMLE Step examination scores that demographic factors may play a role. The race and ethnicity of applicants likely play a role. It has been reported that underrepresented minorities had lower match rates than White and Asian applicants in dermatology.⁶ There have been several published articles discussing the lack of diversity in dermatology, with a call to action.^7-9

Factors for Couples Matching—The number of applicants participating in the couples match continues to increase yearly. The NMRP does publish data regarding “successful” couples matching but does not specify how many couples match together. There also is little published regarding advice for participation in the couples match. Although we had a limited number of couples that participated in the match, it is interesting to note they had similar strategies, including contacting programs at institutions that had offered interviews to their partners. This strategy may be effective, as dermatology programs offer interviews relatively late compared with other specialties.⁵ Additionally, this strategy may increase the number of interviews offered and received, as evidenced by the higher number of interviews offered compared with those who were not couples matching. Additionally, this survey highlights the sacrifice often needed by couples in the couples match as revealed by the inclusion of rank-list options in which the couples reside long distance or in which 1 partner does not match. This information may be helpful to applicants who are planning a strategy for the couples match in dermatology. Although this study does not encompass all dermatology applicants in the 2019-2020 cycle, we do believe it may be representative. The USMLE Step 1 scores in this study were similar to the published NRMP data.^1,10 According to NRMP data from the 2019-2020 cycle, the mean USMLE Step 1 score was 248 for matched applicants and 239 for unmatched.¹ The NRMP reported the mean USMLE Step 2 CK score for matched was 256 and 248 for unmatched, which also is similar to our data. The NRMP reported the mean number of programs ranked was 9.9 for matched and 4.5 for unmatched applicants.¹ Again, our data were similar for number of dermatology interviews attended.

Limitations—There are limitations to this study. The main limitation is that the survey is from a single institution and had a limited number of respondents. Given the nature of the study, the accuracy of the data is dependent on the applicants’ honesty in self-reporting academic performance and other variables. There also may be a selection bias given the low response rate. The subanalyses—children and couples matching—were underpowered with the limited number of participants. Further studies that include multiple residency programs and multiple years could be helpful to provide more power and less risk of bias. We did not gather information such as the Medical Student Performance Evaluation letter, letters of recommendation, or personal statements, which do play an important role in the assessment of an applicant. However, because the applicants completed these surveys, and given these are largely blinded to applicants, we did not feel the applicants could accurately respond to those aspects of the application.

Conclusion

Our survey finds that factors associated with matching included a higher USMLE Step 1 score, having a home dermatology program, and a higher number of interviews offered and attended. Some demographics had varying USMLE Step 1 scores but similar match rates.

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

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

The Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL).

By giving the nod to these uses of this second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, the FDA expanded on its previous approvals of this drug in mantle cell and marginal zone lymphoma.

“We have seen striking data from the Brukinsa development program demonstrating significant and consistent efficacy across CLL patient subtypes, including the high-risk del17p/TP53-mutated population, and regardless of treatment setting,” Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a press release from drug developer BeiGene.

The FDA’s decision was based on two phase 3 trials – SEQUOIA and ALPINE. The SEQUOIA trial assessed 479 patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL who either received zanubrutinib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or bendamustine plus rituximab for six cycles. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 33.7 months in the bendamustine plus rituximab arm (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In a separate, nonrandomized SEQUOIA cohort, investigators assessed zanubrutinib in patients with a 17p deletion and found an overall response rate of 88%. In addition, over the 25-month follow-up, the median duration of response was not reached.

The ALPINE trial included 652 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL/SLL who received either zanubrutinib or ibrutinib. The overall response rate was 80% in the zanubrutinib arm versus 73% in the ibrutinib arm, and the median duration of response was not reached in either arm over the 14-month follow-up period. Median progression-free survival was not reached in the zanubrutinib arm and was 35 months in the ibrutinib group.

Dr. Brown, a lead investigator on both drug trials, suggested that, given the improvements observed in progression-free survival, zanubrutinib could become the standard of care in this setting.

In the ALPINE trial, treatment discontinuation rate was lower among patients receiving zanubrutinib (26%) versus ibrutinib (41.2%), with most discontinuations a result of adverse events or progressive disease.

And across both trials, the most common adverse reactions were decreased neutrophil count (42%), upper respiratory tract infection (39%), decreased platelet count (34%), hemorrhage (30%), and musculoskeletal pain (30%).

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

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

North central Washington state is a lot of nothing other than fields. Every year, the Federal Aviation Administration closes the airspace in a remote part of the area for a model rocket competition, the National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet. It’s a 2-day event and a pretty big deal. People come from all over the country to be there.

When you were a kid, you probably saw those rockets that are 3 feet tall. You launch them up in the air, they have a little parachute that comes out and they come back down to the ground. Well, picture that on ultimate steroids. There are anywhere from 3-foot to almost 20-foot-long rockets at this thing. People show up with horse trailers full of rockets and components. I mean, it’s an obsession.

Some of these rockets are super sophisticated. They have different stages where the first stage burns out and the second takes over. They go up thousands of feet to the edge of the stratosphere. Most of them have GoPro cameras, so you get to see when the rocket reaches the top of its trajectory and the last engine burns out. As it starts to descend, a parachute deploys and it can drift back anywhere from pretty close to where you launched it to a couple miles away. Then you use your little GPS to find it.

I have a nephew who worked for Boeing, and he and his son had a 6-foot entry in this competition. He invited me to come out and see it go off. Why not? I drove out there and parked my Jeep and was walking over to the competition when I noticed something off. A bigger commotion than there should have been.

Here’s what happened 2 minutes before I got there:

A 5-foot-long rocket, 2½ inches in diameter, had reached the top of its several thousand–foot trajectory and was ready to come back to Earth. But its parachute didn’t deploy. It turned itself point-down and literally shot back to earth like a rocket.

It had gone up pretty darn straight and came down just as straight – right into a circle of people sitting in lawn chairs.

It hit a middle-aged man. But you can’t imagine how. First of all, who knows how fast it was going. The point glanced off his forehead and ... how to describe the rest. The man was pretty heavy. So the rocket impaled him through the abdomen and stuck right into the ground. As in, the point entered the top of his belly just below chest level and came out the bottom of his belly. The rocket pinned him to the ground through his belly.

Well, this was not how I planned on spending my day. But my spectator time was over. There were a lot of people running around in circles where he was pinned, not really knowing what to do.

When I said I was an emergency physician, instantly 15 heads looked right at me for direction like, Oh my gosh, please take over! A lot of people were asking: “What can I do? What can I do?” I said: “Well, we don’t need to do CPR. What we really need to do is get this rocket out of the ground. We need to keep him still while we dig out the rocket and get him flat.”

People gently dug around the nose of the rocket. It was in about 6 or 8 inches, enough that we didn’t want to just yank on it (I still marvel at how fast it must have been traveling to both impale the man the way it did and also jam into the ground like that). We wanted to loosen it up and ease it out of the ground.

We managed to dig the nose out and get the guy on his back. Needless to say, he wasn’t particularly comfortable. He looked pretty ashen, like he was in pretty good trouble.

The festival had an EMS kit with some bandages in it, but not a whole lot else. There’s the old joke in emergency medicine: What can you do with duct tape, a Swiss army knife, and a paper clip? It’s like, what has anybody got that might work here?

What we really needed to do was keep both the rocket and the man from moving. We cut off his shirt and got his pants down so that I could better see where it entered and exited. Then we used a couple of clean T-shirts to stabilize the rocket so it didn’t move while he lay flat. It didn’t bleed all that much. And his belly wasn’t massively expanding like he was bleeding internally. I mean, he looked crappy. But so would I!

We were about an hour away from the closest EMS and only a couple people even had cell service out there. But we managed to get hold of EMS. It was also one of those 92-degree days with no shade for 50 miles in any direction.

There was a volunteer firefighter there to man the fire rig. He helped carry the guy into an air-conditioned trailer without moving him very much.

Basically, we stabilized him by keeping him super still and as comfortable as we could until EMS arrived. I rode with him about an hour and a half to the closest trauma center in Central Washington. He was conscious, which was lousy for him but reassuring for me. “You’re still talking to me,” I said. “I think you’re going to be okay.”

One of the take-home points from a medical point of view is never try to remove something sticking out of someone when you’re out in the field. If it’s pushing against something vital, you could do a lot of damage, and if it’s up against a blood vessel, that vessel’s going to bleed uncontrollably.

We got to the trauma center and they took him to the OR. By the grace of friendships, somebody got his wife to the hospital. She was calmer than I think I would have been if my spouse had been hit by a rocket.

The full diagnostic story: The rocket bouncing off his forehead gave him a small skull fracture and slight concussion. That was no big deal. But picture this: The rocket only went through his belly fat. It didn’t hit any of his abdominal organs! I still think this is absolutely amazing. If he had been leaning forward in his lawn chair even a few inches, the rocket would’ve gone through his head and that would’ve been all they wrote.

He stayed in the hospital for a couple of days. I never saw him again, but I received follow-up from the surgeon. And I read the paper the next day. Let me tell you, in Central Washington, this is pretty big news.

It wasn’t the way I’d planned my morning. But you just can’t predict that kind of thing. I don’t know, maybe spiritually or karma wise, I was meant to show up about 90 seconds after he’d been hit. The only emergency physician at the whole event, just by chance. My work blesses me with a certain skill set. I know when to really worry, how to go about keeping somebody safe until you can get them to the ED. It’s something I thank my stars for every single day.

As I said to the guy on the way to the hospital: “Well, it’s not your lucky day, but it sure as heck could have been a whole lot unluckier.”

Stephen Anderson, MD, is an emergency medicine physician in Auburn, Washington and is affiliated with MultiCare Auburn Medical Center.

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

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning–based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Eugene Yang, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. Currently, Dr. Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Dr. Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Mr. Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

• With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
• Australia-based ResApp Health last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
• Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone – rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Dr. Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has identified differences in the brain present in patients with the cardiac disorder Takotsubo syndrome versus control scans, which may lead to new therapeutic targets.

Takotsubo syndrome is an acute heart failure cardiomyopathy mimicking an acute myocardial infarction in its presentation, but on investigation, no obstructive coronary disease is present. The syndrome, which mainly affects women, typically occurs in the aftermath of intense emotional or physical stress and has become known as “broken heart syndrome.”

The mechanism by which emotional processing in the context of stress leads to significant cardiac injury and acute left ventricular dysfunction is not understood. So, the current study examined both structural and functional effects in the brain in patients with Takotsubo syndrome to shed more light on the issue.

“The abnormalities in the thalamus-amygdala-insula and basal ganglia support the concept of involvement of higher-level function centers in Takotsubo syndrome, and interventions aimed at modulating these may be of benefit,” the authors conclude.

The study was published online in JACC: Heart Failure.

Lead author Hilal Khan, MB BCh, BAO, from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), explained to this news organization that patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a substantial drop in heart function and show an apical ballooning of the heart.

It is a relatively newly defined condition and was first described in 1990 in Japan, and so named because the heart was thought to resemble the Takotsubo pot used by Japanese fishermen to trap octopus.

Although uncommon, the condition is not rare. Dr. Khan estimates that about 1 in 20 women with suspected MI turn out to have Takotsubo syndrome, with cases increasing in times of global stress such as in the recent pandemic.

While patients tend to recover in a few weeks and the pumping function of the heart usually returns to normal, there are some long-term cardiac complications including a reduction in global longitudinal strain, and patients have similar long-term outcomes as those with MI.  

“It is believed that these cardiac changes may be triggered by changes in the brain caused by emotional stress, so we wanted to look at this more closely,” Dr. Khan said.  

There have been a couple of studies published previously looking at brain changes in Takotsubo syndrome, but they haven’t reported patients in the acute stage of the condition and they haven’t compared the patients to controls, he noted.

For the current study, the researchers looked at brain scans for 25 acute Takotsubo patients and in 25 controls matched for age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. All the patients and controls were examined using the same MRI scanner in the same hospital.

“This is the largest structural and functional brain study of acute Takotsubo syndrome patients compared with matched control subjects,” Dr. Khan said.

The researchers looked at many different factors including brain volume in different regions, cortical thickness, small-vessel disease, and functional and structural connectivity to try and obtain a complete holistic view of the brain.

Key findings were that patients with Takotsubo syndrome had smaller brain volumes, compared with matched controls, driven by a reduction in brain surface area. In contrast, the insula and thalamus regions were larger.

“A reduction in brain volume could be caused by inflammation; this is often seen in depression,” Dr. Khan commented.  

The researchers also found that certain areas of the brain had a reduction in functional connectivity, particularly the thalamus – the central autonomic area of the brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system – and also the insula region, which is also involved in the autonomic regulation of the heart.

They suggest that there may be a loss of parasympathetic inhibition in Takotsubo syndrome, which would fit the theory that Takotsubo brings with it a surge of catecholamines, which could injure the heart.

Reduced functional connectivity was also seen in parts of the basal ganglia, abnormalities of which have been associated with an increased risk of both arrhythmias, and in the amygdala, similar to patients with a tendency to catastrophize events.

The other observation was that there appeared to be an increase in structural connectivity in certain areas of the brain. 

“Structural pathways seem to be increased but functional connectivity was reduced, so while physical pathways are enhanced, they don’t seem to be doing anything,” Dr. Khan said. “We don’t know why this occurs, or if this has happened over time and made the brain and heart more vulnerable in some way.”

One possibility is that ,under a significant emotional stress, the brain may divert function from some areas to others to be able to cope, and that this results in reduced functioning in areas of the brain responsible for regulating the heart, Dr. Khan suggested.  

“We believe this study confirms that the brain is involved in Takotsubo syndrome, and we have identified markers in the brain that may be contributing to the condition,” he said.

The researchers are planning to further study these markers and whether it might be possible to modulate these changes with various interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

“We believe there is some interface between the brain changes and the impact on the heart. We don’t think it is just the release of catecholamines that causes damage to the heart. We think there is something else happening as well,” Dr. Khan commented.  

It is also possible that the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome are predisposed in some way and more vulnerable to this condition occurring. 

“It will be important to obtain a greater understanding of the triggers and identify people who may be vulnerable,” Dr. Khan noted. “Around 10% of individuals who experience Takotsubo syndrome will have a recurrence, so we need to try and develop preventative strategies to reduce this.”

He suggested that possible preventive or therapeutic approaches may involve interventions such as exercise or mindfulness.

This work was supported by National Health Service Grampian Endowment. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.