MDedge Emergency Medicine

Social media comic Blake Lynch, BSN, RN, known to his millions of followers as “Nurse Blake,” took to his online platforms recently to voice outrage over a Nebraska health care system’s personal appearance policy.

His posts included a screenshot explanation that was presented at a Bryan Health clinical manager meeting featuring an image of women’s hair in buns and the statement: “There is emphasis on hair being clean, neatly managed, therefore ‘no messy buns.’ “

“If you really want to make a difference, don’t worry about hair,” Mr. Lynch said in his social media posts. “Let’s talk safe staffing. Let’s talk mandatory breaks, uninterrupted breaks. Since when is hair an indication if a nurse is a good nurse or a bad nurse? ... Nurses are running around over 12 hours, sweating in patient rooms, putting on PPE, taking off PPE, saving lives, doing CPR. They don’t even have time for beaks, so what nurse is going to be worrying about what their hair looks like?”

Mr. Lynch’s video response to the statement and image attracted more than 560,000 views on Facebook. He subsequently encouraged followers to post photos of their messy buns under the hashtags #showmeyourbuns and #messybunhairday.

Mr. Lynch, who tours the country as a comedian and leads continuing nurse education programs, told this news organization he was not surprised by the reaction to his “messy buns” video. “I think this particular post got so much attention because it resonated with so many nurses,” he said.

He reiterated that with a nursing shortage and understaffing, hospital administrators should focus on patient outcomes rather than nurses’ hair or risk losing more nurses to employers who are less concerned with hair.

Bryan Health, based in Lincoln, Neb., responded on Twitter and in a more extensive statement to this news organization that in his “messy bun” post, Mr. Lynch misrepresented a long-standing health system policy on personal appearance and cleanliness.

The health system’s dress code policy does not mention “messy buns,” the health system stated. The policy mirrors those of other health systems and industries that try to maintain safety and sanitation, the statement continued.

The portion of the policy that sparked interest was not about securing hair but eliminating previous language pertaining to unnatural hair colors, Bryan Health stated.

The relaxed language reads: “Haircuts and colors will not be restricted, but all hair is to be clean, neatly managed, and appropriately secured out of the face. Headbands worn should be simple and professional in color or pattern.”

The health system’s statement continued: “The policy does and will continue to reference clean, neatly managed hair, appropriately secured out of the face. Appropriately secured hair is important for a number of safety reasons.”

A pediatric nurse who goes by “CB” on Twitter responded to Mr. Lynch’s post by indicating that she worked at the Nebraska hospital. “What a joke!!!” Earlier in her response, she said, “You realize most hospitals are dealing with severely understaffed units and nurse burnout. How about you worry about your staff ratios, not your nurses’ hair.”

Mr. Lynch said a nurse sent him a screenshot of “messy buns,” like other followers who send him items for discussion on his social media page. Since the post went viral, Mr. Lynch said he’s had followers inform him of how hair policies such as Bryan Health’s have targeted people of color for more than a decade. And a Nebraska health system told him they’d welcome any nurses with messy hair to offset their nursing shortage.

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

Social media comic Blake Lynch, BSN, RN, known to his millions of followers as “Nurse Blake,” took to his online platforms recently to voice outrage over a Nebraska health care system’s personal appearance policy.

His posts included a screenshot explanation that was presented at a Bryan Health clinical manager meeting featuring an image of women’s hair in buns and the statement: “There is emphasis on hair being clean, neatly managed, therefore ‘no messy buns.’ “

“If you really want to make a difference, don’t worry about hair,” Mr. Lynch said in his social media posts. “Let’s talk safe staffing. Let’s talk mandatory breaks, uninterrupted breaks. Since when is hair an indication if a nurse is a good nurse or a bad nurse? ... Nurses are running around over 12 hours, sweating in patient rooms, putting on PPE, taking off PPE, saving lives, doing CPR. They don’t even have time for beaks, so what nurse is going to be worrying about what their hair looks like?”

Mr. Lynch’s video response to the statement and image attracted more than 560,000 views on Facebook. He subsequently encouraged followers to post photos of their messy buns under the hashtags #showmeyourbuns and #messybunhairday.

Mr. Lynch, who tours the country as a comedian and leads continuing nurse education programs, told this news organization he was not surprised by the reaction to his “messy buns” video. “I think this particular post got so much attention because it resonated with so many nurses,” he said.

He reiterated that with a nursing shortage and understaffing, hospital administrators should focus on patient outcomes rather than nurses’ hair or risk losing more nurses to employers who are less concerned with hair.

Bryan Health, based in Lincoln, Neb., responded on Twitter and in a more extensive statement to this news organization that in his “messy bun” post, Mr. Lynch misrepresented a long-standing health system policy on personal appearance and cleanliness.

The health system’s dress code policy does not mention “messy buns,” the health system stated. The policy mirrors those of other health systems and industries that try to maintain safety and sanitation, the statement continued.

The portion of the policy that sparked interest was not about securing hair but eliminating previous language pertaining to unnatural hair colors, Bryan Health stated.

The relaxed language reads: “Haircuts and colors will not be restricted, but all hair is to be clean, neatly managed, and appropriately secured out of the face. Headbands worn should be simple and professional in color or pattern.”

The health system’s statement continued: “The policy does and will continue to reference clean, neatly managed hair, appropriately secured out of the face. Appropriately secured hair is important for a number of safety reasons.”

A pediatric nurse who goes by “CB” on Twitter responded to Mr. Lynch’s post by indicating that she worked at the Nebraska hospital. “What a joke!!!” Earlier in her response, she said, “You realize most hospitals are dealing with severely understaffed units and nurse burnout. How about you worry about your staff ratios, not your nurses’ hair.”

Mr. Lynch said a nurse sent him a screenshot of “messy buns,” like other followers who send him items for discussion on his social media page. Since the post went viral, Mr. Lynch said he’s had followers inform him of how hair policies such as Bryan Health’s have targeted people of color for more than a decade. And a Nebraska health system told him they’d welcome any nurses with messy hair to offset their nursing shortage.

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

Social media comic Blake Lynch, BSN, RN, known to his millions of followers as “Nurse Blake,” took to his online platforms recently to voice outrage over a Nebraska health care system’s personal appearance policy.

His posts included a screenshot explanation that was presented at a Bryan Health clinical manager meeting featuring an image of women’s hair in buns and the statement: “There is emphasis on hair being clean, neatly managed, therefore ‘no messy buns.’ “

“If you really want to make a difference, don’t worry about hair,” Mr. Lynch said in his social media posts. “Let’s talk safe staffing. Let’s talk mandatory breaks, uninterrupted breaks. Since when is hair an indication if a nurse is a good nurse or a bad nurse? ... Nurses are running around over 12 hours, sweating in patient rooms, putting on PPE, taking off PPE, saving lives, doing CPR. They don’t even have time for beaks, so what nurse is going to be worrying about what their hair looks like?”

Mr. Lynch’s video response to the statement and image attracted more than 560,000 views on Facebook. He subsequently encouraged followers to post photos of their messy buns under the hashtags #showmeyourbuns and #messybunhairday.

Mr. Lynch, who tours the country as a comedian and leads continuing nurse education programs, told this news organization he was not surprised by the reaction to his “messy buns” video. “I think this particular post got so much attention because it resonated with so many nurses,” he said.

He reiterated that with a nursing shortage and understaffing, hospital administrators should focus on patient outcomes rather than nurses’ hair or risk losing more nurses to employers who are less concerned with hair.

Bryan Health, based in Lincoln, Neb., responded on Twitter and in a more extensive statement to this news organization that in his “messy bun” post, Mr. Lynch misrepresented a long-standing health system policy on personal appearance and cleanliness.

The health system’s dress code policy does not mention “messy buns,” the health system stated. The policy mirrors those of other health systems and industries that try to maintain safety and sanitation, the statement continued.

The portion of the policy that sparked interest was not about securing hair but eliminating previous language pertaining to unnatural hair colors, Bryan Health stated.

The relaxed language reads: “Haircuts and colors will not be restricted, but all hair is to be clean, neatly managed, and appropriately secured out of the face. Headbands worn should be simple and professional in color or pattern.”

The health system’s statement continued: “The policy does and will continue to reference clean, neatly managed hair, appropriately secured out of the face. Appropriately secured hair is important for a number of safety reasons.”

A pediatric nurse who goes by “CB” on Twitter responded to Mr. Lynch’s post by indicating that she worked at the Nebraska hospital. “What a joke!!!” Earlier in her response, she said, “You realize most hospitals are dealing with severely understaffed units and nurse burnout. How about you worry about your staff ratios, not your nurses’ hair.”

Mr. Lynch said a nurse sent him a screenshot of “messy buns,” like other followers who send him items for discussion on his social media page. Since the post went viral, Mr. Lynch said he’s had followers inform him of how hair policies such as Bryan Health’s have targeted people of color for more than a decade. And a Nebraska health system told him they’d welcome any nurses with messy hair to offset their nursing shortage.

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

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

When it comes to chemsex, the findings of various international studies all agree: 20% to 30% of men who have sex with men (MSM) engage in this practice, which is becoming more and more prevalent. Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.

Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.

This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.

Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?

Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.

Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?

Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.

Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?

Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.

Question: What impact does it have on health?

Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.

Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?

Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.

Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?

Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.

Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?

Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.

Question: What is the treatment based on?

Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).

There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.

There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.

In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.

Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?

Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis who belong to underserved groups may not be getting the health care they need because of lack of access, a study based on national registry data suggests.

“Using the All of Us dataset, we identified lower rates of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in participants with skin of color, lower education levels, and no health insurance,” lead author Megan M. Tran said in her oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“This suggests psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis underdiagnosis in these underserved populations, possibly due to limited dermatologic care access,” added Ms. Tran, a second-year medical student at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

Ms. Tran and colleagues used the ongoing National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program registry that contains a large proportion of participants from groups in the United States who have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research, she said in her talk. 

Of the 329,038 participants with data in version 5 (released this past March) of the All of Us database, 150,158 (45.6%) had skin of color, and 251,597 (76.5%) had available electronic health records (EHRs).
 

Underserved groups need better access to health care

Linking data from EHRs, surveys, and physical measurements at enrollment, the researchers used several variables to estimate psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) prevalence, and they used multivariate logistic regression to adjust for the variables. They found:

• Twenty-two percent of patients with psoriasis had PsA. Odds of psoriasis and PsA were lower among Black (psoriasis odds ratio [OR], 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.36; PsA OR, 0.20, 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) and Hispanic participants (psoriasis OR, 0.77, 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; PsA OR, 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.89) compared with White participants.
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with age (topping off at age 70 and older [OR, 3.35, 95% CI, 2.91-3.88], with 18-29 years as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (70 years and above [OR, 4.41, 95% CI, 3.07-6.55] compared with those aged 18-29 years).  
• Psoriasis prevalence increased linearly with body mass index (BMI 40 and above [OR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.54-1.90], with 20-24.9 as the reference). The same trend was found with PsA (BMI 40 and above [OR, 2.09, 95% CI, 1.68-2.59], with 20-24.9 as the reference).  
• Former smokers were at increased risk for disease, compared with people who had never smoked (psoriasis OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.39; PsA OR, 2.15, 95% CI, 1.33-3.78).
• Lower odds were found in uninsured adults (psoriasis OR, 0.43, 95% CI, 0.35-0.52; PsA OR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) compared with those who were insured, and in those with less than a high school degree (psoriasis OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.63-0.82; PsA OR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) compared with those with a college degree.

“The All of Us research program has demonstrated to be a valuable resource to gain unique dermatologic insights on diverse participant populations,” Ms. Tran said.

“There needs to be improvement in access to quality dermatologic care, as this may help to reduce underdiagnosis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” she added. Access can be increased  in various ways, including “outreach to underserved communities, equitable distribution of resources, and increased awareness of clinical variations in skin of color.”

Laura Korb Ferris, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and director of clinical trials for the department of dermatology at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study is interesting.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians’ reluctance to discuss possible harms of anal sex may be letting down a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks, two researchers from the United Kingdom write in an opinion article published in The BMJ.

Failure to discuss the subject “exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments, and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” write Tabitha Gana, MD, and Lesley Hunt, MD, with Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Northern General Hospital, both in Sheffield, United Kingdom.

In their opinion, health care professionals, particularly those in general practice, gastroenterology, and colorectal surgery, “have a duty to acknowledge changes in society around anal sex in young women and to meet these changes with open, neutral, and non-judgmental conversations to ensure that all women have the information they need to make informed choices about sex.”

Asking about anal sex is standard practice in genitourinary medicine clinics, but it’s less common in general practice and colorectal clinics, they point out.
 

No longer taboo

Anal intercourse is becoming more common among young heterosexual couples. In the United Kingdom, participation in heterosexual anal intercourse among people aged 16-24 years rose from about 13% to 29% over the last few decades, according to national survey data. 

The same thing is happening in the United States, where research suggests 30%-44% of men and women report having anal sex.

Individual motivation for anal sex varies. Young women cite pleasure, curiosity, pleasing the male partners, and coercion as factors. Up to 25% of women with experience of anal sex report they have been pressured into it at least once, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

However, because of its association with alcohol, drug use, and multiple sex partners, anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behavior.

It’s also associated with specific health concerns, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out. These include fecal incontinence and anal sphincter injury, which have been reported in women who engage in anal intercourse. When it comes to incontinence, women are at higher risk than men because of their different anatomy and the effects of hormones, pregnancy, and childbirth on the pelvic floor.

“Women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men, and damage caused by anal penetration is therefore more consequential,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out.

“The pain and bleeding women report after anal sex is indicative of trauma, and risks may be increased if anal sex is coerced,” they add.

Knowledge of the underlying risk factors and taking a good history are key to effective management of anorectal disorders, they say.  

Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt worry that clinicians may shy away from talking about anal sex, influenced by society’s taboos.

Currently, NHS patient information on anal sex considers only sexually transmitted infections, making no mention of anal trauma, incontinence, or the psychological aftermath of being coerced into anal sex.  

“It may not be just avoidance or stigma that prevents health professionals [from] talking to young women about the risks of anal sex. There is genuine concern that the message may be seen as judgmental or even misconstrued as homophobic,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt write.

“However, by avoiding these discussions, we may be failing a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks,” they add.

“With better information, women who want anal sex would be able to protect themselves more effectively from possible harm, and those who agree to anal sex reluctantly to meet society’s expectations or please partners may feel better empowered to say no,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians’ reluctance to discuss possible harms of anal sex may be letting down a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks, two researchers from the United Kingdom write in an opinion article published in The BMJ.

Failure to discuss the subject “exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments, and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” write Tabitha Gana, MD, and Lesley Hunt, MD, with Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Northern General Hospital, both in Sheffield, United Kingdom.

In their opinion, health care professionals, particularly those in general practice, gastroenterology, and colorectal surgery, “have a duty to acknowledge changes in society around anal sex in young women and to meet these changes with open, neutral, and non-judgmental conversations to ensure that all women have the information they need to make informed choices about sex.”

Asking about anal sex is standard practice in genitourinary medicine clinics, but it’s less common in general practice and colorectal clinics, they point out.
 

No longer taboo

Anal intercourse is becoming more common among young heterosexual couples. In the United Kingdom, participation in heterosexual anal intercourse among people aged 16-24 years rose from about 13% to 29% over the last few decades, according to national survey data. 

The same thing is happening in the United States, where research suggests 30%-44% of men and women report having anal sex.

Individual motivation for anal sex varies. Young women cite pleasure, curiosity, pleasing the male partners, and coercion as factors. Up to 25% of women with experience of anal sex report they have been pressured into it at least once, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

However, because of its association with alcohol, drug use, and multiple sex partners, anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behavior.

It’s also associated with specific health concerns, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out. These include fecal incontinence and anal sphincter injury, which have been reported in women who engage in anal intercourse. When it comes to incontinence, women are at higher risk than men because of their different anatomy and the effects of hormones, pregnancy, and childbirth on the pelvic floor.

“Women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men, and damage caused by anal penetration is therefore more consequential,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out.

“The pain and bleeding women report after anal sex is indicative of trauma, and risks may be increased if anal sex is coerced,” they add.

Knowledge of the underlying risk factors and taking a good history are key to effective management of anorectal disorders, they say.  

Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt worry that clinicians may shy away from talking about anal sex, influenced by society’s taboos.

Currently, NHS patient information on anal sex considers only sexually transmitted infections, making no mention of anal trauma, incontinence, or the psychological aftermath of being coerced into anal sex.  

“It may not be just avoidance or stigma that prevents health professionals [from] talking to young women about the risks of anal sex. There is genuine concern that the message may be seen as judgmental or even misconstrued as homophobic,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt write.

“However, by avoiding these discussions, we may be failing a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks,” they add.

“With better information, women who want anal sex would be able to protect themselves more effectively from possible harm, and those who agree to anal sex reluctantly to meet society’s expectations or please partners may feel better empowered to say no,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians’ reluctance to discuss possible harms of anal sex may be letting down a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks, two researchers from the United Kingdom write in an opinion article published in The BMJ.

Failure to discuss the subject “exposes women to missed diagnoses, futile treatments, and further harm arising from a lack of medical advice,” write Tabitha Gana, MD, and Lesley Hunt, MD, with Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Northern General Hospital, both in Sheffield, United Kingdom.

In their opinion, health care professionals, particularly those in general practice, gastroenterology, and colorectal surgery, “have a duty to acknowledge changes in society around anal sex in young women and to meet these changes with open, neutral, and non-judgmental conversations to ensure that all women have the information they need to make informed choices about sex.”

Asking about anal sex is standard practice in genitourinary medicine clinics, but it’s less common in general practice and colorectal clinics, they point out.
 

No longer taboo

Anal intercourse is becoming more common among young heterosexual couples. In the United Kingdom, participation in heterosexual anal intercourse among people aged 16-24 years rose from about 13% to 29% over the last few decades, according to national survey data. 

The same thing is happening in the United States, where research suggests 30%-44% of men and women report having anal sex.

Individual motivation for anal sex varies. Young women cite pleasure, curiosity, pleasing the male partners, and coercion as factors. Up to 25% of women with experience of anal sex report they have been pressured into it at least once, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

However, because of its association with alcohol, drug use, and multiple sex partners, anal intercourse is considered a risky sexual behavior.

It’s also associated with specific health concerns, Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out. These include fecal incontinence and anal sphincter injury, which have been reported in women who engage in anal intercourse. When it comes to incontinence, women are at higher risk than men because of their different anatomy and the effects of hormones, pregnancy, and childbirth on the pelvic floor.

“Women have less robust anal sphincters and lower anal canal pressures than men, and damage caused by anal penetration is therefore more consequential,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt point out.

“The pain and bleeding women report after anal sex is indicative of trauma, and risks may be increased if anal sex is coerced,” they add.

Knowledge of the underlying risk factors and taking a good history are key to effective management of anorectal disorders, they say.  

Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt worry that clinicians may shy away from talking about anal sex, influenced by society’s taboos.

Currently, NHS patient information on anal sex considers only sexually transmitted infections, making no mention of anal trauma, incontinence, or the psychological aftermath of being coerced into anal sex.  

“It may not be just avoidance or stigma that prevents health professionals [from] talking to young women about the risks of anal sex. There is genuine concern that the message may be seen as judgmental or even misconstrued as homophobic,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt write.

“However, by avoiding these discussions, we may be failing a generation of young women who are unaware of the risks,” they add.

“With better information, women who want anal sex would be able to protect themselves more effectively from possible harm, and those who agree to anal sex reluctantly to meet society’s expectations or please partners may feel better empowered to say no,” Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt say.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gana and Dr. Hunt report no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

COVID-19 is far from done in the United States, with more than 111,000 new cases being recorded a day in the second week of August, according to Johns Hopkins University, and 625 deaths being reported every day. And as that toll grows, experts are worried about a second wave of illnesses from long COVID, a condition that already has affected between 7.7 million and 23 million Americans, according to U.S. government estimates.

“It is evident that long COVID is real, that it already impacts a substantial number of people, and that this number may continue to grow as new infections occur,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a research action plan released Aug. 4.

“We are heading towards a big problem on our hands,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in St. Louis. “It’s like if we are falling in a plane, hurtling towards the ground. It doesn’t matter at what speed we are falling; what matters is that we are all falling, and falling fast. It’s a real problem. We needed to bring attention to this, yesterday,” he said.

Bryan Lau, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and co-lead of a long COVID study there, says whether it’s 5% of the 92 million officially recorded U.S. COVID-19 cases, or 30% – on the higher end of estimates – that means anywhere between 4.5 million and 27 million Americans will have the effects of long COVID.

Other experts put the estimates even higher.

“If we conservatively assume 100 million working-age adults have been infected, that implies 10 to 33 million may have long COVID,” Alice Burns, PhD, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, wrote in an analysis.

And even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only a fraction of cases have been recorded.

That, in turn, means tens of millions of people who struggle to work, to get to school, and to take care of their families – and who will be making demands on an already stressed U.S. health care system.

The HHS said in its Aug. 4 report that long COVID could keep 1 million people a day out of work, with a loss of $50 billion in annual pay.

Dr. Lau said health workers and policymakers are woefully unprepared.

“If you have a family unit, and the mom or dad can’t work, or has trouble taking their child to activities, where does the question of support come into play? Where is there potential for food issues, or housing issues?” he asked. “I see the potential for the burden to be extremely large in that capacity.”

Dr. Lau said he has yet to see any strong estimates of how many cases of long COVID might develop. Because a person has to get COVID-19 to ultimately get long COVID, the two are linked. In other words, as COVID-19 cases rise, so will cases of long COVID, and vice versa.

Evidence from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis suggests a significant impact on employment: Surveys showed more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before becoming infected are either out of work or working fewer hours. Conditions associated with long COVID – such as fatigue, malaise, or problems concentrating – limit people’s ability to work, even if they have jobs that allow for accommodations.

Two surveys of people with long COVID who had worked before becoming infected showed that between 22% and 27% of them were out of work after getting long COVID. In comparison, among all working-age adults in 2019, only 7% were out of work. Given the sheer number of working-age adults with long COVID, the effects on employment may be profound and are likely to involve more people over time. One study estimates that long COVID already accounts for 15% of unfilled jobs.

The most severe symptoms of long COVID include brain fog and heart complications, known to persist for weeks for months after a COVID-19 infection.

A study from the University of Norway published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found 53% of people tested had at least one symptom of thinking problems 13 months after infection with COVID-19. According to the HHS’ latest report on long COVID, people with thinking problems, heart conditions, mobility issues, and other symptoms are going to need a considerable amount of care. Many will need lengthy periods of rehabilitation.

Dr. Al-Aly worries that long COVID has already severely affected the labor force and the job market, all while burdening the country’s health care system.

“While there are variations in how individuals respond and cope with long COVID, the unifying thread is that with the level of disability it causes, more people will be struggling to keep up with the demands of the workforce and more people will be out on disability than ever before,” he said.

Studies from Johns Hopkins and the University of Washington estimate that 5%-30% of people could get long COVID in the future. Projections beyond that are hazy.

“So far, all the studies we have done on long COVID have been reactionary. Much of the activism around long COVID has been patient led. We are seeing more and more people with lasting symptoms. We need our research to catch up,” Dr. Lau said.

Theo Vos, MD, PhD, professor of health sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, said the main reasons for the huge range of predictions are the variety of methods used, as well as differences in sample size. Also, much long COVID data is self-reported, making it difficult for epidemiologists to track.

“With self-reported data, you can’t plug people into a machine and say this is what they have or this is what they don’t have. At the population level, the only thing you can do is ask questions. There is no systematic way to define long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Vos’s most recent study, which is being peer-reviewed and revised, found that most people with long COVID have symptoms similar to those seen in other autoimmune diseases. But sometimes the immune system can overreact, causing the more severe symptoms, such as brain fog and heart problems, associated with long COVID.

One reason that researchers struggle to come up with numbers, said Dr. Al-Aly, is the rapid rise of new variants. These variants appear to sometimes cause less severe disease than previous ones, but it’s not clear whether that means different risks for long COVID.

“There’s a wide diversity in severity. Someone can have long COVID and be fully functional, while others are not functional at all. We still have a long way to go before we figure out why,” Dr. Lau said.

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

The vast majority of Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive potentially lifesaving medications.

Drugs such as methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone have been shown to reduce opioid overdoses by more than 50%. Yet a new analysis shows that only about 1 in 10 people living with OUD receive these medications.

“Even though it’s not especially surprising, it’s still disturbing and shocking in a way that we have just made such little progress on this huge issue,” study investigator Noa Krawczyk, PhD, with the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, department of population health, NYU Langone, told this news organization.

NYU Langone Health

Increased urgency

Despite efforts to increase capacity for OUD treatment in the United States, how receipt of treatment compares to need for treatment remains unclear.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues examined the gap between new estimates of OUD prevalence and treatment at the national and state levels from 2010 through 2019.

“Despite a steady increase in the number of individuals who received medication for OUD over the past decade, the pace of growth in treatment utilization has not kept up with persistently-high rates of OUD and overdose deaths,” the investigators write.

Adjusted estimates suggest that past-year OUD affected roughly 7.63 million individuals in the United States (2,773 per 100,000), yet only about 1.02 million received medication (365 per 100,000), they note.

Overall, there was a 106% increase in receipt of medications for OUD across the United States from 2010 to 2019 and a 5% increase from 2018 to 2019.

Yet, as of 2019, 87% of people with OUD were not receiving medication.

“While the number of people getting treatment doubled over the last decade, it’s nowhere near the amount of people who are still struggling with an opioid use disorder, and the urgency of the problem has become much worse because of the worsening fentanyl crisis and the lethality of the drug supply,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

The study also showed wide variation in past-year OUD prevalence and treatment across the United States.

Past-year OUD rates were highest in Washington, D.C., and lowest in Minnesota. Receipt of treatment was lowest in South Dakota and highest in Vermont.

However, in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., past-year OUD prevalence was greater than rates of medication use. As of 2019, the largest treatment gaps were in Iowa, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C. The smallest treatment gaps were in Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
 

Long road ahead

“Even in states with the smallest treatment gaps, at least 50% of people who could benefit from medications for opioid use disorder are still not receiving them,” senior author Magdalena Cerdá, DrPH, director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy in the department of population health at NYU Langone Health, said in a statement.

“We have a long way to go in reducing stigma surrounding treatment and in devising the types of policies and programs we need to ensure these medications reach the people who need them the most,” Dr. Cerdá added.

Access to OUD treatment is an ongoing problem in the United States.

“A lot of areas don’t have specialty treatment programs that provide methadone, or they might not have addiction-trained providers who are willing to prescribe buprenorphine or have a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, so a lot places are really struggling with where people can get treatment,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

Recent data show that 46% of counties lack an OUD medication provider, and 32% have no specialty programs to treat substance use disorders.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues note that COVID-19–related policy changes and recently proposed legislation to allow more flexible and convenient access to OUD treatment may be a first step toward expanding access to this lifesaving treatment.

But improving initial access to medication for OUD is “only the first step – our research and health systems have a long way to go in addressing the needs of people with OUD to support retention in treatment and services to effectively reduce overdose and improve long-term health and well-being,” the researchers write.

The study was supported by the NYU Center for Epidemiology and Policy. Dr. Krawczyk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive potentially lifesaving medications.

Drugs such as methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone have been shown to reduce opioid overdoses by more than 50%. Yet a new analysis shows that only about 1 in 10 people living with OUD receive these medications.

“Even though it’s not especially surprising, it’s still disturbing and shocking in a way that we have just made such little progress on this huge issue,” study investigator Noa Krawczyk, PhD, with the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, department of population health, NYU Langone, told this news organization.

NYU Langone Health

Increased urgency

Despite efforts to increase capacity for OUD treatment in the United States, how receipt of treatment compares to need for treatment remains unclear.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues examined the gap between new estimates of OUD prevalence and treatment at the national and state levels from 2010 through 2019.

“Despite a steady increase in the number of individuals who received medication for OUD over the past decade, the pace of growth in treatment utilization has not kept up with persistently-high rates of OUD and overdose deaths,” the investigators write.

Adjusted estimates suggest that past-year OUD affected roughly 7.63 million individuals in the United States (2,773 per 100,000), yet only about 1.02 million received medication (365 per 100,000), they note.

Overall, there was a 106% increase in receipt of medications for OUD across the United States from 2010 to 2019 and a 5% increase from 2018 to 2019.

Yet, as of 2019, 87% of people with OUD were not receiving medication.

“While the number of people getting treatment doubled over the last decade, it’s nowhere near the amount of people who are still struggling with an opioid use disorder, and the urgency of the problem has become much worse because of the worsening fentanyl crisis and the lethality of the drug supply,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

The study also showed wide variation in past-year OUD prevalence and treatment across the United States.

Past-year OUD rates were highest in Washington, D.C., and lowest in Minnesota. Receipt of treatment was lowest in South Dakota and highest in Vermont.

However, in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., past-year OUD prevalence was greater than rates of medication use. As of 2019, the largest treatment gaps were in Iowa, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C. The smallest treatment gaps were in Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
 

Long road ahead

“Even in states with the smallest treatment gaps, at least 50% of people who could benefit from medications for opioid use disorder are still not receiving them,” senior author Magdalena Cerdá, DrPH, director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy in the department of population health at NYU Langone Health, said in a statement.

“We have a long way to go in reducing stigma surrounding treatment and in devising the types of policies and programs we need to ensure these medications reach the people who need them the most,” Dr. Cerdá added.

Access to OUD treatment is an ongoing problem in the United States.

“A lot of areas don’t have specialty treatment programs that provide methadone, or they might not have addiction-trained providers who are willing to prescribe buprenorphine or have a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, so a lot places are really struggling with where people can get treatment,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

Recent data show that 46% of counties lack an OUD medication provider, and 32% have no specialty programs to treat substance use disorders.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues note that COVID-19–related policy changes and recently proposed legislation to allow more flexible and convenient access to OUD treatment may be a first step toward expanding access to this lifesaving treatment.

But improving initial access to medication for OUD is “only the first step – our research and health systems have a long way to go in addressing the needs of people with OUD to support retention in treatment and services to effectively reduce overdose and improve long-term health and well-being,” the researchers write.

The study was supported by the NYU Center for Epidemiology and Policy. Dr. Krawczyk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive potentially lifesaving medications.

Drugs such as methadone, buprenorphine, and extended-release naltrexone have been shown to reduce opioid overdoses by more than 50%. Yet a new analysis shows that only about 1 in 10 people living with OUD receive these medications.

“Even though it’s not especially surprising, it’s still disturbing and shocking in a way that we have just made such little progress on this huge issue,” study investigator Noa Krawczyk, PhD, with the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy, department of population health, NYU Langone, told this news organization.

NYU Langone Health

Increased urgency

Despite efforts to increase capacity for OUD treatment in the United States, how receipt of treatment compares to need for treatment remains unclear.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues examined the gap between new estimates of OUD prevalence and treatment at the national and state levels from 2010 through 2019.

“Despite a steady increase in the number of individuals who received medication for OUD over the past decade, the pace of growth in treatment utilization has not kept up with persistently-high rates of OUD and overdose deaths,” the investigators write.

Adjusted estimates suggest that past-year OUD affected roughly 7.63 million individuals in the United States (2,773 per 100,000), yet only about 1.02 million received medication (365 per 100,000), they note.

Overall, there was a 106% increase in receipt of medications for OUD across the United States from 2010 to 2019 and a 5% increase from 2018 to 2019.

Yet, as of 2019, 87% of people with OUD were not receiving medication.

“While the number of people getting treatment doubled over the last decade, it’s nowhere near the amount of people who are still struggling with an opioid use disorder, and the urgency of the problem has become much worse because of the worsening fentanyl crisis and the lethality of the drug supply,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

The study also showed wide variation in past-year OUD prevalence and treatment across the United States.

Past-year OUD rates were highest in Washington, D.C., and lowest in Minnesota. Receipt of treatment was lowest in South Dakota and highest in Vermont.

However, in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., past-year OUD prevalence was greater than rates of medication use. As of 2019, the largest treatment gaps were in Iowa, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C. The smallest treatment gaps were in Connecticut, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
 

Long road ahead

“Even in states with the smallest treatment gaps, at least 50% of people who could benefit from medications for opioid use disorder are still not receiving them,” senior author Magdalena Cerdá, DrPH, director of the Center for Opioid Epidemiology and Policy in the department of population health at NYU Langone Health, said in a statement.

“We have a long way to go in reducing stigma surrounding treatment and in devising the types of policies and programs we need to ensure these medications reach the people who need them the most,” Dr. Cerdá added.

Access to OUD treatment is an ongoing problem in the United States.

“A lot of areas don’t have specialty treatment programs that provide methadone, or they might not have addiction-trained providers who are willing to prescribe buprenorphine or have a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine, so a lot places are really struggling with where people can get treatment,” said Dr. Krawczyk.

Recent data show that 46% of counties lack an OUD medication provider, and 32% have no specialty programs to treat substance use disorders.

Dr. Krawczyk and colleagues note that COVID-19–related policy changes and recently proposed legislation to allow more flexible and convenient access to OUD treatment may be a first step toward expanding access to this lifesaving treatment.

But improving initial access to medication for OUD is “only the first step – our research and health systems have a long way to go in addressing the needs of people with OUD to support retention in treatment and services to effectively reduce overdose and improve long-term health and well-being,” the researchers write.

The study was supported by the NYU Center for Epidemiology and Policy. Dr. Krawczyk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.
 

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.
 

Stress, meet weight gain. Weight gain, meet stress

You’re not eating differently and you’re keeping active, but your waistline is expanding. How is that happening? Since eating healthy and exercising shouldn’t make you gain weight, there may be a hidden factor getting in your way. Stress. The one thing that can have a grip on your circadian rhythm stronger than any bodybuilder.

Francesca Bellini/iStock/Getty Images

Investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine published two mouse studies that suggest stress and other factors that throw the body’s circadian clocks out of rhythm may contribute to weight gain.

In the first study, the researchers imitated disruptive condition effects like high cortisol exposure and chronic stress by implanting pellets under the skin that released glucocorticoid at a constant rate for 21 days. Mice that received the pellets had twice as much white and brown fat, as well as much higher insulin levels, regardless of their unchanged and still-healthy diet.

In the second study, they used tagged proteins as markers to monitor the daily fluctuations of a protein that regulates fat cell production and circadian gene expression in mouse fat cell precursors. The results showed “that fat cell precursors commit to becoming fat cells only during the circadian cycle phase corresponding to evening in humans,” they said in a written statement.

“Every cell in our body has an intrinsic cell clock, just like the fat cells, and we have a master clock in our brain, which controls hormone secretion,” said senior author Mary Teruel of Cornell University. “A lot of forces are working against a healthy metabolism when we are out of circadian rhythm. The more we understand, the more likely we will be able to do something about it.”

So if you’re stressing out that the scale is or isn’t moving in the direction you want, you could be standing in your own way. Take a chill pill.
 

Who can smell cancer? The locust nose

If you need to smell some gas, there’s nothing better than a nose. Just ask a scientist: “Noses are still state of the art,” said Debajit Saha, PhD, of Michigan State University. “There’s really nothing like them when it comes to gas sensing.”

Derrick L. Turner

And when it comes to noses, dogs are best, right? After all, there’s a reason we don’t have bomb-sniffing wombats and drug-sniffing ostriches. Dogs are better. Better, but not perfect. And if they’re not perfect, then human technology can do better.

Enter the electronic nose. Which is better than dogs … except that it isn’t. “People have been working on ‘electronic noses’ for more than 15 years, but they’re still not close to achieving what biology can do seamlessly,” Dr. Saha explained in a statement from the university.

Which brings us back to dogs. If you want to detect early-stage cancer using smell, you go to the dogs, right? Nope.

Here’s Christopher Contag, PhD, also of Michigan State, who recruited Dr. Saha to the university: “I told him, ‘When you come here, we’ll detect cancer. I’m sure your locusts can do it.’ ”

Yes, locusts. Dr. Contag and his research team were looking at mouth cancers and noticed that different cell lines had different appearances. Then they discovered that those different-looking cell lines produced different metabolites, some of which were volatile.

Enter Dr. Saha’s locusts. They were able to tell the difference between normal cells and cancer cells and could even distinguish between the different cell lines. And how they were able to share this information? Not voluntarily, that’s for sure. The researchers attached electrodes to the insects’ brains and recorded their responses to gas samples from both healthy and cancer cells. Those brain signals were then used to create chemical profiles of the different cells. Piece of cake.

The whole getting-electrodes-attached-to-their-brains thing seemed at least a bit ethically ambiguous, so we contacted the locusts’ PR office, which offered some positive spin: “Humans get their early cancer detection and we get that whole swarms-that-devour-entire-countrysides thing off our backs. Win win.”
 

Bad news for vampires everywhere

Pop culture has been extraordinarily kind to the vampire. A few hundred years ago, vampires were demon-possessed, often-inhuman monsters. Now? They’re suave, sophisticated, beautiful, and oh-so dramatic and angst-filled about their “curse.” Drink a little human blood, live and look young forever. Such monsters they are.

eakkachaister/Thinkstock

It does make sense in a morbid sort of way. An old person receiving the blood of the young does seem like a good idea for rejuvenation, right? A team of Ukrainian researchers sought to find out, conducting a study in which older mice were linked with young mice via heterochronic parabiosis. For 3 months, old-young mice pairs were surgically connected and shared blood. After 3 months, the mice were disconnected from each other and the effects of the blood link were studied.

For all the vampire enthusiasts out there, we have bad news and worse news. The bad news first: The older mice received absolutely no benefit from heterochronic parabiosis. No youthfulness, no increased lifespan, nothing. The worse news is that the younger mice were adversely affected by the older blood. They aged more and experienced a shortened lifespan, even after the connection was severed. The old blood, according to the investigators, contains factors capable of inducing aging in younger mice, but the opposite is not true. Further research into aging, they added, should focus on suppressing the aging factors in older blood.

Of note, the paper was written by doctors who are currently refugees, fleeing the war in Ukraine. We don’t want to speculate on the true cause of the war, but we’re onto you, Putin. We know you wanted the vampire research for yourself, but it won’t work. Your dream of becoming Vlad “Dracula” Putin will never come to pass.
 

Hearing is not always believing

Have you ever heard yourself on a voice mail, or from a recording you did at work? No matter how good you sound, you still might feel like the recording sounds nothing like you. It may even cause low self-esteem for those who don’t like how their voice sounds or don’t recognize it when it’s played back to them.

Hiroshi Imamizu, University of Tokyo

Since one possible symptom of schizophrenia is not recognizing one’s own speech and having a false sense of control over actions, and those with schizophrenia may hallucinate or hear voices, not being able to recognize their own voices may be alarming.

A recent study on the sense of agency, or sense of control, involved having volunteers speak with different pitches in their voices and then having it played back to them to gauge their reactions.

“Our results demonstrate that hearing one’s own voice is a critical factor to increased self-agency over speech. In other words, we do not strongly feel that ‘I’ am generating the speech if we hear someone else’s voice as an outcome of the speech. Our study provides empirical evidence of the tight link between the sense of agency and self-voice identity,” lead author Ryu Ohata, PhD, of the University of Tokyo, said in a written statement.

As social interaction becomes more digital through platforms such as FaceTime, Zoom, and voicemail, especially since the pandemic has promoted social distancing, it makes sense that people may be more aware and more surprised by how they sound on recordings.

So, if you ever promised someone something that you don’t want to do, and they play it back to you from the recording you made, maybe you can just say you don’t recognize the voice. And if it’s not you, then you don’t have to do it.