Contraceptive Care Clinic Focuses on Military Readiness

Article Type
Changed

SAN DIEGO — Not surprisingly, the contraception clinic at Madigan Army Medical Center near Tacoma, Wash., is popular among female soldiers seeking to avoid pregnancy. However, about half of the patients drop by for other reasons, the military pharmacist who runs the program told colleagues here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar.
“They come to suppress menstruation, to get help with pain, to get help with PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] symptoms. They're coming for a wide range of indications that we use contraception to treat,” said Sarah Abel, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist. 

Regardless of the reason, Abel emphasized that contraceptives can significantly impact the ability of female soldiers to do their jobs.  “If you have heavy periods and can't make it in work, or you have endometriosis and  requiring a lot of doctor's appointments, or you're deployed and you get pregnant, these are all situations where contraceptive care matters,” she said. Rates of unintended pregnancy are higher in servicewomen than in the general population.
Abel, who opened the medical center’s contraceptive clinic about 10 years ago, stressed that it’s crucial to military readiness considering that the percentage of women in the American military is approaching 20%. 

Thanks to a 2022 edict, military hospitals and clinics are required to offer walk-in contraceptive services with same-day access, no requirements for appointments or referrals. An announcement about the mandate noted that these contraceptive services, such as preventing unplanned pregnancy and decreasing menstrual periods, “support the overall well-being of the force and optimize personal warrior readiness.”

As Abel noted, 29 states and Washington D.C. allow pharmacists to prescribe contraception to outpatients, although the requirements vary. “Can we start practicing at the top of our license and start prescribing in the outpatient setting? Absolutely we should,” she said. “Pharmacists have a very unique opportunity to be a part of this.”

Abel also shared that setting up a contraceptive program requires patience and education. “I cannot tell you how many women have come to me who don't know the different names of their body parts, women who've had two babies that don't understand how their body works. So, I constantly find myself taking extra time to do general sexual education,” she said.

There are many lessons to impart to patients about sexual health. For example, birth control drugs and devices do not prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). “So I have bowls of condoms literally everywhere because condoms are the only thing that protects against STIs,” Abel said.

In terms of devices, “we have diaphragms available and cervical caps,” she said. “The Caya diaphragm is a TRICARE-covered benefit. It’s a small purple diaphragm, one size fits most. We can prescribe it, and it is good for 2 years. Unfortunately, spermicide, which you have to use with these things, is not a TRICARE-covered benefit.”
Hormonal contraceptives are also available, with Abel recommending the continuous monophasic type for most women. “Please don't tell women they have to have their periods. They don't,” she said. “What I'm trying to do is give a woman some stability in her hormones. She can know and expect what she's going to feel like. She's not going to wake up and say, ‘Oh God, today's the day. I'm going to be like this for a week.’”

Patches are another option, and a flurry of patients have been asking about them because of recent TikTok videos promoting their use. “We have the Xulane patch, our bread and butter. They wear it on their shoulder, their hip, their butt, or their back. They leave it in place for a week at a time. And every week, they will change that patch. I usually have to walk patients through a whole month to help them understand how that works.”

Another option, the NuvaRing, is notable because it’s linked to low amounts of breakthrough bleeding Abel noted. An extended form is now available that doesn’t need to be removed during menstrual periods.

Medroxyprogesterone injections, which are linked to bone loss, and subdermal implants, which may be less effective in women over 130% of their ideal weight are also available, she said. 

Finally, IUDs are an option, although when they fail, they’re linked to ectopic pregnancies.   

 

Abel has no disclosures.  

Publications
Topics
Sections

SAN DIEGO — Not surprisingly, the contraception clinic at Madigan Army Medical Center near Tacoma, Wash., is popular among female soldiers seeking to avoid pregnancy. However, about half of the patients drop by for other reasons, the military pharmacist who runs the program told colleagues here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar.
“They come to suppress menstruation, to get help with pain, to get help with PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] symptoms. They're coming for a wide range of indications that we use contraception to treat,” said Sarah Abel, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist. 

Regardless of the reason, Abel emphasized that contraceptives can significantly impact the ability of female soldiers to do their jobs.  “If you have heavy periods and can't make it in work, or you have endometriosis and  requiring a lot of doctor's appointments, or you're deployed and you get pregnant, these are all situations where contraceptive care matters,” she said. Rates of unintended pregnancy are higher in servicewomen than in the general population.
Abel, who opened the medical center’s contraceptive clinic about 10 years ago, stressed that it’s crucial to military readiness considering that the percentage of women in the American military is approaching 20%. 

Thanks to a 2022 edict, military hospitals and clinics are required to offer walk-in contraceptive services with same-day access, no requirements for appointments or referrals. An announcement about the mandate noted that these contraceptive services, such as preventing unplanned pregnancy and decreasing menstrual periods, “support the overall well-being of the force and optimize personal warrior readiness.”

As Abel noted, 29 states and Washington D.C. allow pharmacists to prescribe contraception to outpatients, although the requirements vary. “Can we start practicing at the top of our license and start prescribing in the outpatient setting? Absolutely we should,” she said. “Pharmacists have a very unique opportunity to be a part of this.”

Abel also shared that setting up a contraceptive program requires patience and education. “I cannot tell you how many women have come to me who don't know the different names of their body parts, women who've had two babies that don't understand how their body works. So, I constantly find myself taking extra time to do general sexual education,” she said.

There are many lessons to impart to patients about sexual health. For example, birth control drugs and devices do not prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). “So I have bowls of condoms literally everywhere because condoms are the only thing that protects against STIs,” Abel said.

In terms of devices, “we have diaphragms available and cervical caps,” she said. “The Caya diaphragm is a TRICARE-covered benefit. It’s a small purple diaphragm, one size fits most. We can prescribe it, and it is good for 2 years. Unfortunately, spermicide, which you have to use with these things, is not a TRICARE-covered benefit.”
Hormonal contraceptives are also available, with Abel recommending the continuous monophasic type for most women. “Please don't tell women they have to have their periods. They don't,” she said. “What I'm trying to do is give a woman some stability in her hormones. She can know and expect what she's going to feel like. She's not going to wake up and say, ‘Oh God, today's the day. I'm going to be like this for a week.’”

Patches are another option, and a flurry of patients have been asking about them because of recent TikTok videos promoting their use. “We have the Xulane patch, our bread and butter. They wear it on their shoulder, their hip, their butt, or their back. They leave it in place for a week at a time. And every week, they will change that patch. I usually have to walk patients through a whole month to help them understand how that works.”

Another option, the NuvaRing, is notable because it’s linked to low amounts of breakthrough bleeding Abel noted. An extended form is now available that doesn’t need to be removed during menstrual periods.

Medroxyprogesterone injections, which are linked to bone loss, and subdermal implants, which may be less effective in women over 130% of their ideal weight are also available, she said. 

Finally, IUDs are an option, although when they fail, they’re linked to ectopic pregnancies.   

 

Abel has no disclosures.  

SAN DIEGO — Not surprisingly, the contraception clinic at Madigan Army Medical Center near Tacoma, Wash., is popular among female soldiers seeking to avoid pregnancy. However, about half of the patients drop by for other reasons, the military pharmacist who runs the program told colleagues here at the Joint Federal Pharmacy Seminar.
“They come to suppress menstruation, to get help with pain, to get help with PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome] symptoms. They're coming for a wide range of indications that we use contraception to treat,” said Sarah Abel, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist. 

Regardless of the reason, Abel emphasized that contraceptives can significantly impact the ability of female soldiers to do their jobs.  “If you have heavy periods and can't make it in work, or you have endometriosis and  requiring a lot of doctor's appointments, or you're deployed and you get pregnant, these are all situations where contraceptive care matters,” she said. Rates of unintended pregnancy are higher in servicewomen than in the general population.
Abel, who opened the medical center’s contraceptive clinic about 10 years ago, stressed that it’s crucial to military readiness considering that the percentage of women in the American military is approaching 20%. 

Thanks to a 2022 edict, military hospitals and clinics are required to offer walk-in contraceptive services with same-day access, no requirements for appointments or referrals. An announcement about the mandate noted that these contraceptive services, such as preventing unplanned pregnancy and decreasing menstrual periods, “support the overall well-being of the force and optimize personal warrior readiness.”

As Abel noted, 29 states and Washington D.C. allow pharmacists to prescribe contraception to outpatients, although the requirements vary. “Can we start practicing at the top of our license and start prescribing in the outpatient setting? Absolutely we should,” she said. “Pharmacists have a very unique opportunity to be a part of this.”

Abel also shared that setting up a contraceptive program requires patience and education. “I cannot tell you how many women have come to me who don't know the different names of their body parts, women who've had two babies that don't understand how their body works. So, I constantly find myself taking extra time to do general sexual education,” she said.

There are many lessons to impart to patients about sexual health. For example, birth control drugs and devices do not prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). “So I have bowls of condoms literally everywhere because condoms are the only thing that protects against STIs,” Abel said.

In terms of devices, “we have diaphragms available and cervical caps,” she said. “The Caya diaphragm is a TRICARE-covered benefit. It’s a small purple diaphragm, one size fits most. We can prescribe it, and it is good for 2 years. Unfortunately, spermicide, which you have to use with these things, is not a TRICARE-covered benefit.”
Hormonal contraceptives are also available, with Abel recommending the continuous monophasic type for most women. “Please don't tell women they have to have their periods. They don't,” she said. “What I'm trying to do is give a woman some stability in her hormones. She can know and expect what she's going to feel like. She's not going to wake up and say, ‘Oh God, today's the day. I'm going to be like this for a week.’”

Patches are another option, and a flurry of patients have been asking about them because of recent TikTok videos promoting their use. “We have the Xulane patch, our bread and butter. They wear it on their shoulder, their hip, their butt, or their back. They leave it in place for a week at a time. And every week, they will change that patch. I usually have to walk patients through a whole month to help them understand how that works.”

Another option, the NuvaRing, is notable because it’s linked to low amounts of breakthrough bleeding Abel noted. An extended form is now available that doesn’t need to be removed during menstrual periods.

Medroxyprogesterone injections, which are linked to bone loss, and subdermal implants, which may be less effective in women over 130% of their ideal weight are also available, she said. 

Finally, IUDs are an option, although when they fail, they’re linked to ectopic pregnancies.   

 

Abel has no disclosures.  

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Searching for the Optimal CRC Surveillance Test

Article Type
Changed

About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.

Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee. 

Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee



Dr. Lee has devoted his research to colorectal cancer screening, as well as the causes and prevention of CRC. He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.

The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.

“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”

In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist. 
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field. 

Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine? 

My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes. 

 

 

Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer? 

We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further. 
 

Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years? 

We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.

Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now? 

We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine. 

Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.  
 

Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive? 

Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer. 

 

 

Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you? 

Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley? 

I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.

Dr. Lee
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee, a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, is pictured here with his son at a 2024 Cal football game.

It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans. 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

Favorite breakfast?

Taiwanese breakfast



Place you most want to travel to?

Japan



Favorite junk food?

Trader Joe’s chili lime chips



Favorite season?

Springtime, baseball season



Favorite ice cream flavor?

Mint chocolate chip



How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2-3



Last movie you watched?

Oppenheimer 



Best place you ever went on vacation?

Hawaii



If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Barber



Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

SpongeBob SquarePants



Favorite sport?

Tennis

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Any classic 80s song



Introvert or extrovert?

Introvert

Publications
Topics
Sections

About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.

Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee. 

Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee



Dr. Lee has devoted his research to colorectal cancer screening, as well as the causes and prevention of CRC. He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.

The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.

“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”

In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist. 
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field. 

Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine? 

My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes. 

 

 

Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer? 

We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further. 
 

Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years? 

We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.

Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now? 

We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine. 

Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.  
 

Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive? 

Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer. 

 

 

Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you? 

Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley? 

I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.

Dr. Lee
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee, a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, is pictured here with his son at a 2024 Cal football game.

It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans. 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

Favorite breakfast?

Taiwanese breakfast



Place you most want to travel to?

Japan



Favorite junk food?

Trader Joe’s chili lime chips



Favorite season?

Springtime, baseball season



Favorite ice cream flavor?

Mint chocolate chip



How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2-3



Last movie you watched?

Oppenheimer 



Best place you ever went on vacation?

Hawaii



If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Barber



Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

SpongeBob SquarePants



Favorite sport?

Tennis

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Any classic 80s song



Introvert or extrovert?

Introvert

About a third of the US population are eligible for colorectal cancer screening but aren’t up to date on screening.

Many patients are reluctant to test for colon cancer for a variety of reasons, said Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research and an attending gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center.

“As a gastroenterologist, I strongly believe we should emphasize the importance of colorectal cancer screening. And there’s many tests available, not just a colonoscopy, to help reduce your chances of developing colorectal cancer and even dying from colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Lee. 

Many patients prefer a test that’s more convenient, that doesn’t require them to take time out of their busy schedules. “We must educate our patients that there are some noninvasive screening options that are helpful, and to be able to share with them some of the benefits, but also some of the drawbacks compared to colonoscopy and allow them to have a choice,” he advised.

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee



Dr. Lee has devoted his research to colorectal cancer screening, as well as the causes and prevention of CRC. He is a recipient of the AGA Research Scholar Award, and has in turn supported other researchers by contributing to the AGA Research Foundation. In 2012, Dr. Lee received a grant from the Sylvia Allison Kaplan Clinical Research Fund to fund a study on long-term colorectal cancer risk in patients with normal colonoscopy results.

The findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, determined that 10 years after a negative colonoscopy, Kaiser Permanente members had a 46% lower risk of being diagnosed with CRC and were 88% less likely to die from disease compared with patients who didn’t undergo screening.

“Furthermore, the reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, even dying from it, persisted for more than 12 years after the examination compared with an unscreened population,” said Dr. Lee. “I firmly believe our study really supports the ten-year screening interval after a normal colonoscopy, as currently recommended by our guidelines.”

In an interview, he discussed his research efforts to find the best detection regimens for CRC, and the mentors who guided his career path as a GI scientist. 
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

During medical school I was fortunate to work in the lab of Dr. John M. Carethers at UC San Diego. He introduced me to GI and inspired me to choose GI as a career. His mentorship was invaluable because he not only solidified my interest in GI, but also inspired me to become a physician scientist, focusing on colorectal cancer prevention and control. His amazing mentorship drew me to this field. 

Q: One of your clinical focus areas is hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. How did you become interested in this area of GI medicine? 

My interest in hereditary GI cancer syndromes stemmed from my work as a medical student in Dr. Carethers’ lab. One of my research projects was looking at certain gene mutations among patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes, specifically, familial hamartomatous polyposis syndrome. It was through these research projects and seeing how these genetic mutations impacted their risk of developing colorectal cancer, inspired me to care for patients with hereditary GI cancer syndromes. 

 

 

Q: Have you been doing any research on the reasons why more young people are getting colon cancer? 

We recently published work looking at the potential factors that may be driving the rising rates of early onset colorectal cancer. One hypothesis that’s been floating around is antibiotic exposure in early adulthood or childhood because of its effect on the microbiome. Using our large database at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we did not find an association between oral antibiotic use during early adulthood and the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

You have the usual suspects like obesity and diabetes, but it’s not explaining all that risk. While familial colorectal cancer syndromes contribute to a small proportion of early-onset colorectal, these syndromes are not increasing across generations. I really do feel it’s something in the diet or how foods are processed and environmental factors that’s driving some of the risk of early onset colorectal cancer and this should be explored further. 
 

Q: In 2018, you issued a landmark study which found an association between a 10-year follow-up after negative colonoscopy and reduced risk of disease and mortality. Has there been any updates to these findings over the last 6 years? 

We recently saw a study in JAMA Oncology of a Swedish cohort that showed a negative colonoscopy result was associated with a reduced risk of developing and even dying from colorectal cancer 15 years from that examination, compared to the general population of Sweden. I think there’s some things that we need to be cautious about regarding that study. We have to think about the comparison group that they used and the lack of information regarding the indication of the colonoscopy and the quality of the examination. So, it remains uncertain whether future guidelines are going to stretch out that 10-year interval to 15 years.

Q: What other CRC studies are you working on now? 

We have several studies that we are working on right now. One is called the PREVENT CRC study, which is looking at whether a polygenic risk score can improve risk stratification following adenoma removal for colorectal cancer prevention and tailoring post-polypectomy surveillance. This is a large observational cohort study that we have teamed up with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Erasmus University, and Kaiser Permanente Northwest to answer this important question that may have implications for personalized medicine. 

Then there’s the COOP study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This is looking at the best surveillance test to use among older adults 65 years and older with a history of polyps. The trial is randomizing them to either getting a colonoscopy for surveillance or annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for surveillance. This is to see which test is best for detecting colorectal cancer among older adults with a history of polyps.  
 

Q: Do you think FIT tests could eventually replace colonoscopy, given that it’s less invasive? 

Although FIT and other stool-based tests are less invasive and have been shown to have high accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer, I personally do not think they are going to replace colonoscopy as the most popular screening modality in the United States. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detecting and removing precancerous polyps and has the highest accuracy for detecting colorectal cancer. 

 

 

Q: Besides Dr. Carethers, what teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you? 

Clinically it’s been Dr. Jonathan Terdiman from UCSF, who taught me everything I know about clinical GI, and the art of colonoscopy. In addition, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, the Permanente Medical Group’s chief research officer, has made the greatest impact on my research career. He’s really taught me how to rigorously design a research study to answer important clinically relevant questions, and has given me the skill set to write NIH grants. I would not be here without these mentors who are truly giants in the field of GI.

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? Are you still a “Cal Bears” fan at your alma mater, UC Berkeley? 

I spend a lot of time taking my kids to their activities on the weekends. I just took my son to a Cal Bears Game Day, which was hosted by ESPN at Berkeley.

Dr. Lee
Dr. Jeffrey K. Lee, a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, is pictured here with his son at a 2024 Cal football game.

It was an incredible experience hearing sports analyst Pat McAfee lead all the Cal chants, seeing Nick Saban from the University of Alabama take off his red tie and replace it with a Cal Bears tie, and watching a Cal student win a hundred thousand dollars by kicking a football through the goal posts wearing checkered vans. 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

Favorite breakfast?

Taiwanese breakfast



Place you most want to travel to?

Japan



Favorite junk food?

Trader Joe’s chili lime chips



Favorite season?

Springtime, baseball season



Favorite ice cream flavor?

Mint chocolate chip



How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2-3



Last movie you watched?

Oppenheimer 



Best place you ever went on vacation?

Hawaii



If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Barber



Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

SpongeBob SquarePants



Favorite sport?

Tennis

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Any classic 80s song



Introvert or extrovert?

Introvert

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Giving the Smallest GI Transplant Patients a New Lease On Life

Article Type
Changed

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

 

Stanford Medicine
Dr. Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI? 

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation? 

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work? 

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share? 

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research? 

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? 

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

 

 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Publications
Topics
Sections

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

 

Stanford Medicine
Dr. Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI? 

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation? 

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work? 

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share? 

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research? 

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? 

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

 

 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

The best part about working with kids is that “I get to laugh every day,” said Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang, MD, clinical assistant professor for pediatrics–gastroenterology and hepatology at Stanford Medicine in California.

As medical director of intestinal transplant at Stanford Children’s Health, Dr. Zhang sees children with critical illnesses like intestinal failure or chronic liver disease. Everyday life for them is a challenge.

 

Stanford Medicine
Dr. Ke-You (Yoyo) Zhang

Dealing with sick children is difficult. “But I think the difference between pediatrics and adults is despite how hard things get, children are the single most resilient people you’re ever going to meet,” she said.

Kids don’t always know they’re sick and they don’t act sick, even when they are. “Every day, I literally get on the floor, I get to play, I get to run around. And truly, I have fun every single day. I get excited to go to work. And I think that’s what makes work not feel like work,” said Dr. Zhang.

In an interview, she discussed the satisfaction of following patients throughout their care continuum and her research to reduce the likelihood of transplant rejection.

She also shared an inspirational story of one young patient who spent his life tied to an IV, and how a transplant exposed him to the normal joys of life, like swimming, going to camp and getting on a plane for the first time.
 

Q: Why did you choose this subspecialty of pediatric GI? 

I think it’s the best subspecialty because I think it combines a lot of the things that I enjoy, which is long-term continuity of care. It’s about growing up with your patients and seeing them through all the various stages of their life, often meeting patients when they’re babies. I get pictures of high school graduations and life milestones and even see some of my patients have families of their own. Becoming a part of their family is very meaningful to me. I also like complexity and acuity, and gastroenterology and hepatology provide those things.

And then lastly, it’s great to be able to exercise procedural skills and constantly learn new procedural skills. 
 

Q: How did you become interested in the field of pediatric intestinal and liver transplantation? 

I did all my training here at Stanford. We have one of the largest pediatric transplant centers and we also have a very large intestinal rehabilitation population.

Coming through residency and fellowship, I had a lot of exposure to transplant and intestinal failure, intestinal rehabilitation. I really liked the longitudinal relationship I got to form with my patients. Sometimes they’re in the neonatal ICU, where you’re meeting them in their very first days of life. You follow them through their chronic illness, through transplant and after transplant for many years. You become not just their GI, but the center of their care.
 

Q: What challenges are unique to this type of transplant work? 

Pediatric intestinal failure and intestinal transplant represents an incredibly small subset of children. Oftentimes, they do not get the resources and recognition on a national policy level or even at the hospital level that other gastrointestinal diseases receive. What’s difficult is they are such a small subset but their complexity and their needs are probably in the highest percentile. So that’s a really challenging combination to start with. And there’s only a few centers that specialize in doing intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation for children in the country.

Developing expertise has been slow. But I think in the last decade or so, our understanding and success with intestinal rehabilitation and intestinal transplantation has really improved, especially at large centers like Stanford. We’ve had a lot of success stories and have not had any graft loss since 2014. 
 

Q: Are these transplants hard to acquire?

Yes, especially when you’re transplanting not just the intestines but the liver as well. You’re waiting for two organs, not just one organ. And on top of that, you’re waiting for an appropriately sized donor; usually a child who’s around the same size or same age who’s passed away. Those organs would have to be a good match. Children can wait multiple years for a transplant. 

Q: Is there a success story you’d like to share? 

One patient I met in the neonatal ICU had congenital short bowel syndrome. He was born with hardly any intestines. He developed complications of being on long-term intravenous nutrition, which included recurrent central line infections and liver disease. He was never able to eat because he really didn’t have a digestive system that could adequately absorb anything. He had a central line in one of his large veins, so he couldn’t go swimming. 

He had to have special adaptive wear to even shower or bathe and couldn’t travel. It’s these types of patients that benefit so much from transplant. Putting any kid through transplant is a massive undertaking and it certainly has risks. But he underwent a successful transplant at the age of 8—not just an intestinal transplant, but a multi-visceral transplant of the liver, intestine, and pancreas. He’s 9 years old now, and no longer needs intravenous nutrition. He ate by mouth for the very first time after transplant. He’s trying all sorts of new foods and he was able to go to a special transplant camp for children. Getting on a plane to Los Angeles, which is where our transplant camp is, was a huge deal. 

He was able to swim in the lake. He’s never been able to do that. And he wants to start doing sports this fall. This was really a life-changing story for him. 
 

Q: What advancements lie ahead for this field of work? Have you work on any notable research? 

I think our understanding of transplant immunology has really progressed, especially recently. That’s what part of my research is about—using novel therapies to modulate the immune system of pediatric transplant recipients. The No. 1 complication that occurs after intestinal transplant is rejection because obviously you’re implanting somebody else’s organs into a patient.

I am involved in a clinical trial that’s looking at the use of extracellular vesicles that are isolated from hematopoietic stem cells. These vesicles contain various growth factors, anti-inflammatory proteins and tissue repair factors that we are infusing into intestinal transplant patients with the aim to repair the intestinal tissue patients are rejecting. 
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons? 

My husband and I have an almost 2-year-old little girl. She keeps us busy and I spend my afternoons chasing after a crazy toddler.

 

 

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Huge texter

Favorite junk food?

French fries



Cat or dog person?

Dog

Favorite ice cream?

Strawberry

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?Florist

Best place you’ve traveled to?

Thailand

Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?

Too many

Favorite city in the US besides the one you live in?

New York City

Favorite sport?

Tennis

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

In a Parallel Universe, “I’d Be a Concert Pianist” Says Tennessee GI

Article Type
Changed

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

 

Dr. Pointer
Dr. Stephanie D. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

 

 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Publications
Topics
Sections

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

 

Dr. Pointer
Dr. Stephanie D. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

 

 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

 

Dr. Pointer
Dr. Stephanie D. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

 

 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes

Article Type
Changed

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

 

In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.

The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.

A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.

 

Thyme Care
Dr. Samyukta Mullangi

“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.

Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.

The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.

The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.

CMS expects the new navigators may:

  • Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
  • Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
  • Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.

Peers as Navigators

The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.

“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.

The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.

But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.

In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.

“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.

Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.

The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.

The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.

Journal of Oncology Navigation & Survivorship
Sharon Gentry



Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.

Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.

Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.

“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
 

 

 

Potential Challenges

Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.

“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.

In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.

While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.

“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.

Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.

Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.

A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.

Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.

The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.

Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
 

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

SVS Now Accepting Abstracts for VAM 2017

Article Type
Changed

 

Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.

Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.

Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.

 

Publications
Sections

 

Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.

Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.

Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.

 

 

Abstracts for the 2017 Vascular Annual Meeting are now being accepted. The submission site opened Monday, Nov. 14 for the meeting, to be held May 31 to June 3, 2017, in San Diego. Plenary sessions and exhibits will be June 1 to 3.

Participants may submit abstracts into any of 14 categories and a number of presentation types, including videos. In 2016, organizers selected approximately two-thirds of the submitted abstracts, and this year the VAM Program Committee is seeking additional venues for people to present their work in, including more sessions and other presentation formats.

Click here for abstract guidelines and more information. Abstracts themselves may be submitted here.

 

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads

Atypical Antipsychotics Tied to Adrenal Issues

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Atypical Antipsychotics Tied to Adrenal Issues

 

 

NEW ORLEANS — It is important to recognize the potential for atypical antipsychotics to cause adrenal insufficiency to ensure that the condition is managed appropriately, according to Dr. Violeta Tan and Dr. Natalie Rasgon.

They described the case of a 54-year-old man with a history of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder who was admitted to the hospital after complaining of malaise 9 days after a previous admission for a urinary tract infection that had been treated with ciprofloxacin.

At the first admission, the patient was restarted on 225 mg/day of bupropion and 300 mg/day of quetiapine (Seroquel), both of which he had discontinued 6–8 months prior, said Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, who presented the case in a poster session at the American Psychiatric Association's Institute of Psychiatric Services.

Symptoms at the time of the second admission included fatigue, warmth, chills, loose stools, mild headache, and reproducible chest wall pain. Laboratory findings showed that previously normal eosinophil levels were elevated (6.5%–8.3%), reported Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

A work-up for infection, malignancy, and rheumatologic conditions was negative, and primary adrenal insufficiency was ruled out based on the findings of a cosyntropin stimulation test. However, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) levels (less than 5 pg/mL) indicated secondary or tertiary adrenal insufficiency, and a review of the patient's medications alerted the authors to the possibility of quetiapine-associated ACTH and cortisol reductions.

Atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine can reduce cortisol levels—often in association with improved psychopathology. Thus, although the cortisol-lowering effects of such drugs may ameliorate negative symptomatology, the reduction could be detrimental, they wrote.

However, adrenal insufficiency caused by such agents has not been specifically studied, and although it might seem appropriate to discontinue the “offending agent,” the risks of discontinuing antipsychotics should be weighed against the benefits of preventing adrenal insufficiency sequelae, they added.

In the current case, which also demonstrated that quetiapine administration, particularly under precipitating circumstances such as an infection or stress, can contribute to reductions in ACTH and cortisol secretion, the patient's condition improved after quetiapine, a standard treatment for adrenal insufficiency, was administered at 20 mg every morning and at 10 mg at bedtime.

Atypical antipsychotics can cause adrenal insufficiency, which presents ambiguously, and awareness of this can be key in preventing false diagnoses, they said.

 

Adrenal insufficiency can present ambiguously, which can lead to false diagnoses. DR. RASGON

 

 

Spotting Adrenal Insufficiency

Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon say determining whether a patient has developed adrenal insufficiency requires an investigation into four areas:

Symptoms. Look for weakness and fatigue, abdominal distress, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, myalgia or arthralgia, postural dizziness, salt craving, headache, impaired memory, and depression.

Physical findings. Some factors to look out for are increased pigmentation, postural hypotension, tachycardia, fever, decreased body hair, vitiligo, amenorrhea, and cold intolerance.

Laboratory findings. Red flags include hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, eosinophilia, and elevated thyroid stimulating hormone.

Clinical problems. Watch for hemodynamic instability, ongoing inflammation, multiple-organ dysfunction, and hypoglycemia.

Article PDF
Publications
Topics
Article PDF
Article PDF

 

 

NEW ORLEANS — It is important to recognize the potential for atypical antipsychotics to cause adrenal insufficiency to ensure that the condition is managed appropriately, according to Dr. Violeta Tan and Dr. Natalie Rasgon.

They described the case of a 54-year-old man with a history of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder who was admitted to the hospital after complaining of malaise 9 days after a previous admission for a urinary tract infection that had been treated with ciprofloxacin.

At the first admission, the patient was restarted on 225 mg/day of bupropion and 300 mg/day of quetiapine (Seroquel), both of which he had discontinued 6–8 months prior, said Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, who presented the case in a poster session at the American Psychiatric Association's Institute of Psychiatric Services.

Symptoms at the time of the second admission included fatigue, warmth, chills, loose stools, mild headache, and reproducible chest wall pain. Laboratory findings showed that previously normal eosinophil levels were elevated (6.5%–8.3%), reported Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

A work-up for infection, malignancy, and rheumatologic conditions was negative, and primary adrenal insufficiency was ruled out based on the findings of a cosyntropin stimulation test. However, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) levels (less than 5 pg/mL) indicated secondary or tertiary adrenal insufficiency, and a review of the patient's medications alerted the authors to the possibility of quetiapine-associated ACTH and cortisol reductions.

Atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine can reduce cortisol levels—often in association with improved psychopathology. Thus, although the cortisol-lowering effects of such drugs may ameliorate negative symptomatology, the reduction could be detrimental, they wrote.

However, adrenal insufficiency caused by such agents has not been specifically studied, and although it might seem appropriate to discontinue the “offending agent,” the risks of discontinuing antipsychotics should be weighed against the benefits of preventing adrenal insufficiency sequelae, they added.

In the current case, which also demonstrated that quetiapine administration, particularly under precipitating circumstances such as an infection or stress, can contribute to reductions in ACTH and cortisol secretion, the patient's condition improved after quetiapine, a standard treatment for adrenal insufficiency, was administered at 20 mg every morning and at 10 mg at bedtime.

Atypical antipsychotics can cause adrenal insufficiency, which presents ambiguously, and awareness of this can be key in preventing false diagnoses, they said.

 

Adrenal insufficiency can present ambiguously, which can lead to false diagnoses. DR. RASGON

 

 

Spotting Adrenal Insufficiency

Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon say determining whether a patient has developed adrenal insufficiency requires an investigation into four areas:

Symptoms. Look for weakness and fatigue, abdominal distress, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, myalgia or arthralgia, postural dizziness, salt craving, headache, impaired memory, and depression.

Physical findings. Some factors to look out for are increased pigmentation, postural hypotension, tachycardia, fever, decreased body hair, vitiligo, amenorrhea, and cold intolerance.

Laboratory findings. Red flags include hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, eosinophilia, and elevated thyroid stimulating hormone.

Clinical problems. Watch for hemodynamic instability, ongoing inflammation, multiple-organ dysfunction, and hypoglycemia.

 

 

NEW ORLEANS — It is important to recognize the potential for atypical antipsychotics to cause adrenal insufficiency to ensure that the condition is managed appropriately, according to Dr. Violeta Tan and Dr. Natalie Rasgon.

They described the case of a 54-year-old man with a history of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder who was admitted to the hospital after complaining of malaise 9 days after a previous admission for a urinary tract infection that had been treated with ciprofloxacin.

At the first admission, the patient was restarted on 225 mg/day of bupropion and 300 mg/day of quetiapine (Seroquel), both of which he had discontinued 6–8 months prior, said Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, who presented the case in a poster session at the American Psychiatric Association's Institute of Psychiatric Services.

Symptoms at the time of the second admission included fatigue, warmth, chills, loose stools, mild headache, and reproducible chest wall pain. Laboratory findings showed that previously normal eosinophil levels were elevated (6.5%–8.3%), reported Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon, both of Stanford (Calif.) University.

A work-up for infection, malignancy, and rheumatologic conditions was negative, and primary adrenal insufficiency was ruled out based on the findings of a cosyntropin stimulation test. However, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) levels (less than 5 pg/mL) indicated secondary or tertiary adrenal insufficiency, and a review of the patient's medications alerted the authors to the possibility of quetiapine-associated ACTH and cortisol reductions.

Atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine can reduce cortisol levels—often in association with improved psychopathology. Thus, although the cortisol-lowering effects of such drugs may ameliorate negative symptomatology, the reduction could be detrimental, they wrote.

However, adrenal insufficiency caused by such agents has not been specifically studied, and although it might seem appropriate to discontinue the “offending agent,” the risks of discontinuing antipsychotics should be weighed against the benefits of preventing adrenal insufficiency sequelae, they added.

In the current case, which also demonstrated that quetiapine administration, particularly under precipitating circumstances such as an infection or stress, can contribute to reductions in ACTH and cortisol secretion, the patient's condition improved after quetiapine, a standard treatment for adrenal insufficiency, was administered at 20 mg every morning and at 10 mg at bedtime.

Atypical antipsychotics can cause adrenal insufficiency, which presents ambiguously, and awareness of this can be key in preventing false diagnoses, they said.

 

Adrenal insufficiency can present ambiguously, which can lead to false diagnoses. DR. RASGON

 

 

Spotting Adrenal Insufficiency

Dr. Tan and Dr. Rasgon say determining whether a patient has developed adrenal insufficiency requires an investigation into four areas:

Symptoms. Look for weakness and fatigue, abdominal distress, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, myalgia or arthralgia, postural dizziness, salt craving, headache, impaired memory, and depression.

Physical findings. Some factors to look out for are increased pigmentation, postural hypotension, tachycardia, fever, decreased body hair, vitiligo, amenorrhea, and cold intolerance.

Laboratory findings. Red flags include hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, eosinophilia, and elevated thyroid stimulating hormone.

Clinical problems. Watch for hemodynamic instability, ongoing inflammation, multiple-organ dysfunction, and hypoglycemia.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Atypical Antipsychotics Tied to Adrenal Issues
Display Headline
Atypical Antipsychotics Tied to Adrenal Issues
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date
Article PDF Media

Post-9/11 Veterans With Blast Exposure Face Dyspnea

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Post-9/11 Veterans With Blast Exposure Face Dyspnea

TOPLINE:

Among 401 post-9/11 veterans with retained embedded fragments, those with blast exposure (n = 361) were more likely to report dyspnea compared with unexposed veterans, though both groups reported respiratory symptoms (ie, cough, phlegm, wheeze). Veterans with blast exposure demonstrated higher forced vital capacity (FVC), total lung capacity (TLC), and diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) values, suggesting better lung function, while those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) showed lower lung volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

  • A total of 402 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Toxic Embedded Fragment (TEF) Registry across 6 VA facilities were recruited from April 2018 through March 2021; 361 reported blast exposure, 41 did not.
  • Participants completed questionnaires assessing blast exposure using the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screening (BTBIS), history of TBI, and respiratory symptoms and diagnoses based on the American Thoracic Society and Division of Lung Disease questionnaire.
  • A total of 369 veterans underwent prebronchodilator pulmonary function testing (PFT) including spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity, as well as impulse oscillometry (IOS) testing; 33 participants recruited after March 2020 were excluded from physiologic testing due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
  • Primary outcomes included respiratory symptoms (cough, wheeze, dyspnea) and diagnoses (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma), while secondary outcomes included PFT and IOS measures such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FVC, TLC, functional residual capacity (FRC), residual volume (RV), DLCO, and resistance and reactance parameters.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Veterans with blast exposure were significantly more likely to report shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking up a slight hill compared with those without blast exposure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 95% CI, 1.04-5.33; P = .040).
  • Blast-exposed veterans demonstrated significantly higher mean measured values for FVC (4.81 L vs 4.62 L; P = .010), TLC (6.46 L vs 6.12 L; P = .024), and DLCO (28.87 ml/min/mmHg vs 27.65 ml/min/mmHg; P = .041) compared with unexposed veterans.
  • Among blast-exposed veterans, those with self-reported TBI diagnosis had significantly lower TLC (P = .04), FRC (P = .003), RV (P = .003), and RV/TLC ratio (P = .014) compared with veterans without TBI.
  • No significant differences were noted between blast-exposed and unexposed groups in prevalence of cough, phlegm, wheeze, respiratory diagnoses, or IOS testing outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

"When assessed using affirmative responses to the BTBIS to signify blast-exposure, we found few differences in blast exposed compared to unexposed veterans regarding respiratory symptoms, except for increased mild dyspnea among those with blast exposure. However, this cohort of young veterans overall expressed a high prevalence of respiratory symptoms without a similarly high prevalence of respiratory diagnoses," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Danielle R. Glick, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, and Stella E. Hines, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. It was published online May 12 in Frontiers in Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a small sample of participants not exposed to blasts (41 vs 361 exposed), which may have limited the ability to detect small differences between groups, though the sample size provided 80% power to detect medium effect sizes. Blast exposure was assessed using self-reported responses from the BTBIS tool, which may have created exposure misclassification and obscured dose-response relationships beyond the severity analysis surrogates. The study relied on self-reported data without verification through medical records or imaging, which may have introduced recall bias. Participants were recruited exclusively from the TEF registry of veterans who sought VA care, which may not represent the broader post-9/11 veteran population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support under Department of Defense grant number W81XWH-16-2-0058 from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. The study received approval from the VA Central Institutional Review Board (protocol #17-13), the US Army Medical Research and Development Command Human Research Protection Office (protocol A-19735), and local VA Research and Development Committees at the Baltimore, Gainesville, Nashville, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Phoenix VA Medical Centers along with their affiliated institutional review boards. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Related Articles

TOPLINE:

Among 401 post-9/11 veterans with retained embedded fragments, those with blast exposure (n = 361) were more likely to report dyspnea compared with unexposed veterans, though both groups reported respiratory symptoms (ie, cough, phlegm, wheeze). Veterans with blast exposure demonstrated higher forced vital capacity (FVC), total lung capacity (TLC), and diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) values, suggesting better lung function, while those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) showed lower lung volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

  • A total of 402 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Toxic Embedded Fragment (TEF) Registry across 6 VA facilities were recruited from April 2018 through March 2021; 361 reported blast exposure, 41 did not.
  • Participants completed questionnaires assessing blast exposure using the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screening (BTBIS), history of TBI, and respiratory symptoms and diagnoses based on the American Thoracic Society and Division of Lung Disease questionnaire.
  • A total of 369 veterans underwent prebronchodilator pulmonary function testing (PFT) including spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity, as well as impulse oscillometry (IOS) testing; 33 participants recruited after March 2020 were excluded from physiologic testing due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
  • Primary outcomes included respiratory symptoms (cough, wheeze, dyspnea) and diagnoses (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma), while secondary outcomes included PFT and IOS measures such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FVC, TLC, functional residual capacity (FRC), residual volume (RV), DLCO, and resistance and reactance parameters.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Veterans with blast exposure were significantly more likely to report shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking up a slight hill compared with those without blast exposure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 95% CI, 1.04-5.33; P = .040).
  • Blast-exposed veterans demonstrated significantly higher mean measured values for FVC (4.81 L vs 4.62 L; P = .010), TLC (6.46 L vs 6.12 L; P = .024), and DLCO (28.87 ml/min/mmHg vs 27.65 ml/min/mmHg; P = .041) compared with unexposed veterans.
  • Among blast-exposed veterans, those with self-reported TBI diagnosis had significantly lower TLC (P = .04), FRC (P = .003), RV (P = .003), and RV/TLC ratio (P = .014) compared with veterans without TBI.
  • No significant differences were noted between blast-exposed and unexposed groups in prevalence of cough, phlegm, wheeze, respiratory diagnoses, or IOS testing outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

"When assessed using affirmative responses to the BTBIS to signify blast-exposure, we found few differences in blast exposed compared to unexposed veterans regarding respiratory symptoms, except for increased mild dyspnea among those with blast exposure. However, this cohort of young veterans overall expressed a high prevalence of respiratory symptoms without a similarly high prevalence of respiratory diagnoses," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Danielle R. Glick, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, and Stella E. Hines, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. It was published online May 12 in Frontiers in Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a small sample of participants not exposed to blasts (41 vs 361 exposed), which may have limited the ability to detect small differences between groups, though the sample size provided 80% power to detect medium effect sizes. Blast exposure was assessed using self-reported responses from the BTBIS tool, which may have created exposure misclassification and obscured dose-response relationships beyond the severity analysis surrogates. The study relied on self-reported data without verification through medical records or imaging, which may have introduced recall bias. Participants were recruited exclusively from the TEF registry of veterans who sought VA care, which may not represent the broader post-9/11 veteran population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support under Department of Defense grant number W81XWH-16-2-0058 from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. The study received approval from the VA Central Institutional Review Board (protocol #17-13), the US Army Medical Research and Development Command Human Research Protection Office (protocol A-19735), and local VA Research and Development Committees at the Baltimore, Gainesville, Nashville, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Phoenix VA Medical Centers along with their affiliated institutional review boards. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE:

Among 401 post-9/11 veterans with retained embedded fragments, those with blast exposure (n = 361) were more likely to report dyspnea compared with unexposed veterans, though both groups reported respiratory symptoms (ie, cough, phlegm, wheeze). Veterans with blast exposure demonstrated higher forced vital capacity (FVC), total lung capacity (TLC), and diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) values, suggesting better lung function, while those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) showed lower lung volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

  • A total of 402 veterans from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Toxic Embedded Fragment (TEF) Registry across 6 VA facilities were recruited from April 2018 through March 2021; 361 reported blast exposure, 41 did not.
  • Participants completed questionnaires assessing blast exposure using the Brief Traumatic Brain Injury Screening (BTBIS), history of TBI, and respiratory symptoms and diagnoses based on the American Thoracic Society and Division of Lung Disease questionnaire.
  • A total of 369 veterans underwent prebronchodilator pulmonary function testing (PFT) including spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity, as well as impulse oscillometry (IOS) testing; 33 participants recruited after March 2020 were excluded from physiologic testing due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
  • Primary outcomes included respiratory symptoms (cough, wheeze, dyspnea) and diagnoses (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma), while secondary outcomes included PFT and IOS measures such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FVC, TLC, functional residual capacity (FRC), residual volume (RV), DLCO, and resistance and reactance parameters.

TAKEAWAY:

  • Veterans with blast exposure were significantly more likely to report shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking up a slight hill compared with those without blast exposure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.35; 95% CI, 1.04-5.33; P = .040).
  • Blast-exposed veterans demonstrated significantly higher mean measured values for FVC (4.81 L vs 4.62 L; P = .010), TLC (6.46 L vs 6.12 L; P = .024), and DLCO (28.87 ml/min/mmHg vs 27.65 ml/min/mmHg; P = .041) compared with unexposed veterans.
  • Among blast-exposed veterans, those with self-reported TBI diagnosis had significantly lower TLC (P = .04), FRC (P = .003), RV (P = .003), and RV/TLC ratio (P = .014) compared with veterans without TBI.
  • No significant differences were noted between blast-exposed and unexposed groups in prevalence of cough, phlegm, wheeze, respiratory diagnoses, or IOS testing outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

"When assessed using affirmative responses to the BTBIS to signify blast-exposure, we found few differences in blast exposed compared to unexposed veterans regarding respiratory symptoms, except for increased mild dyspnea among those with blast exposure. However, this cohort of young veterans overall expressed a high prevalence of respiratory symptoms without a similarly high prevalence of respiratory diagnoses," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Danielle R. Glick, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, and Stella E. Hines, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. It was published online May 12 in Frontiers in Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a small sample of participants not exposed to blasts (41 vs 361 exposed), which may have limited the ability to detect small differences between groups, though the sample size provided 80% power to detect medium effect sizes. Blast exposure was assessed using self-reported responses from the BTBIS tool, which may have created exposure misclassification and obscured dose-response relationships beyond the severity analysis surrogates. The study relied on self-reported data without verification through medical records or imaging, which may have introduced recall bias. Participants were recruited exclusively from the TEF registry of veterans who sought VA care, which may not represent the broader post-9/11 veteran population.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support under Department of Defense grant number W81XWH-16-2-0058 from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. The study received approval from the VA Central Institutional Review Board (protocol #17-13), the US Army Medical Research and Development Command Human Research Protection Office (protocol A-19735), and local VA Research and Development Committees at the Baltimore, Gainesville, Nashville, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Phoenix VA Medical Centers along with their affiliated institutional review boards. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Post-9/11 Veterans With Blast Exposure Face Dyspnea

Display Headline

Post-9/11 Veterans With Blast Exposure Face Dyspnea

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

SMART Program Underutilized for Kids in Primary Asthma Care

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

SMART Program Underutilized for Kids in Primary Asthma Care

Single maintenance and relief therapy (SMART) is underutilized in asthmatic children treated in primary care, a survey-based clinician study in Pediatrics found.

SMART uses a single inhaler combining an inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol, a rapid-acting bronchodilator. Patients use it for daily maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, which reduces flare-ups and simplifies treatment. Despite high awareness and acceptance of SMART’s efficacy and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement, primary care survey respondents reported that implementation of these single inhalers faces multiple roadblocks.

These barriers include insurance coverage, workflow constraints, lack of specific action plans, and resistance to switching from separate short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) therapy, according to investigators led by Allison A. King, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and Fred M. Saigh Distinguished Chair in Pediatric Research at WashU Medicine in St. Louis and director of the WashU Medicine Pediatric and Adolescent Ambulatory Research Consortium (WU PAARC).

“When I took on leadership of WU PAARC about 2 years ago, one of the first things we did was ask the community pediatricians in our network what they most needed to improve care in their own practices. SMART for asthma rose to the top of their list,” King told Medscape Medical News.

The clinical backdrop made it compelling since SMART reduces severe asthma exacerbations by about a third and is now recommended in US and international guidelines for children as young as 4 or 5, she said. “Yet most children with asthma are cared for in primary care, and we knew very little about whether and how SMART was actually being used there. We set out to understand the gap between strong evidence and everyday practice.”

The Study

Conducted during August and September 2025 among pediatric clinicians affiliated with the practice-based WU PAARC, the study invited 189 clinicians to participate. Of these, 52 responded (79% suburban practitioners), and 24 participated in semi-structured follow-up interviews.

“Our respondents skewed suburban and cared for relatively few Medicaid-insured children, so the findings may underrepresent clinicians in higher-Medicaid settings, where coverage and prior-authorization issues can play out differently,” said King. “That’s something we want to address directly in future work.”

While nearly all respondents reported routinely managing the core aspects of asthma treatment, including action plans, only 63% reported providing SMART-tailored action plans, which emerged as a key barrier across different care settings.

Two findings in particular caught the investigators’ attention: the relative absence of SMART-specific asthma action plans and the real difficulty of helping families let go of trusted SABA rescue inhalers, King said. “The pediatric context, where care is shared across parents, schools, and other caregivers, added a layer that adult studies simply do not capture.”

Offering her perspective on the study but involved in it, Santina J. Wheat, MD, MPH, physician in the Division of Family Medicine at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, noted that while SMART is easier to use for families because there are fewer medications to worry about, the biggest barrier remains insurance approval.

“When SMART is used correctly, families run out of the medication more quickly than insurance will pay for it,” she told Medscape Medical News. Even when insurance does cover it, there are often prior authorizations associated with the medications that delay families in being able to get the medications, she said.

Standard coverage authorizations for the SMART inhalers would be helpful, said Wheat. “Additionally, we need the support of schools — training and education may be needed for the school nurses to support the children with these treatment plans.”

Single fixes will not do it, King agreed. “It takes a coordinated bundle.” On the clinician side, practical, hands-on support like practice facilitation, feedback, and brief educational outreach will help move people from belief into routine use.

On the system side, building SMART-specific asthma action plans directly into the electronic health records removes a recurring point of friction. “And because pediatric asthma care is distributed across families and schools, caregiver-facing education and clear school communication tools are essential to help everyone move away from automatic albuterol use.”

Fortunately, the appetite for change is already there. “Clinicians are not skeptical of the evidence,” King said. “This is an implementation challenge, not a debate about whether SMART works, and that is a hopeful place to start, because implementation problems are solvable with the right tools and support.”

Partnerships with professional societies are essential to moving this into national practice, King added. “SMART sits at the intersection of primary care, allergy, and pulmonology, so collaboration across those communities matters.”

This research was supported by the American Lung Association, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Children’s Discovery Institute, a collaboration between the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, its foundation, and WashU Medicine.

King reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), consulting for Evernorth, and royalties from UpToDate. Coauthor James G. Krings disclosed funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and consulting fees or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including, among others, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi-Regeneron (manufacturers of SMART inhalers), Aerogen, and Genentech/Roche. Aimes S. James reported receiving funding from the NIH and the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. All other authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Wheat reported having no conflicts of interest.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

Single maintenance and relief therapy (SMART) is underutilized in asthmatic children treated in primary care, a survey-based clinician study in Pediatrics found.

SMART uses a single inhaler combining an inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol, a rapid-acting bronchodilator. Patients use it for daily maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, which reduces flare-ups and simplifies treatment. Despite high awareness and acceptance of SMART’s efficacy and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement, primary care survey respondents reported that implementation of these single inhalers faces multiple roadblocks.

These barriers include insurance coverage, workflow constraints, lack of specific action plans, and resistance to switching from separate short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) therapy, according to investigators led by Allison A. King, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and Fred M. Saigh Distinguished Chair in Pediatric Research at WashU Medicine in St. Louis and director of the WashU Medicine Pediatric and Adolescent Ambulatory Research Consortium (WU PAARC).

“When I took on leadership of WU PAARC about 2 years ago, one of the first things we did was ask the community pediatricians in our network what they most needed to improve care in their own practices. SMART for asthma rose to the top of their list,” King told Medscape Medical News.

The clinical backdrop made it compelling since SMART reduces severe asthma exacerbations by about a third and is now recommended in US and international guidelines for children as young as 4 or 5, she said. “Yet most children with asthma are cared for in primary care, and we knew very little about whether and how SMART was actually being used there. We set out to understand the gap between strong evidence and everyday practice.”

The Study

Conducted during August and September 2025 among pediatric clinicians affiliated with the practice-based WU PAARC, the study invited 189 clinicians to participate. Of these, 52 responded (79% suburban practitioners), and 24 participated in semi-structured follow-up interviews.

“Our respondents skewed suburban and cared for relatively few Medicaid-insured children, so the findings may underrepresent clinicians in higher-Medicaid settings, where coverage and prior-authorization issues can play out differently,” said King. “That’s something we want to address directly in future work.”

While nearly all respondents reported routinely managing the core aspects of asthma treatment, including action plans, only 63% reported providing SMART-tailored action plans, which emerged as a key barrier across different care settings.

Two findings in particular caught the investigators’ attention: the relative absence of SMART-specific asthma action plans and the real difficulty of helping families let go of trusted SABA rescue inhalers, King said. “The pediatric context, where care is shared across parents, schools, and other caregivers, added a layer that adult studies simply do not capture.”

Offering her perspective on the study but involved in it, Santina J. Wheat, MD, MPH, physician in the Division of Family Medicine at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, noted that while SMART is easier to use for families because there are fewer medications to worry about, the biggest barrier remains insurance approval.

“When SMART is used correctly, families run out of the medication more quickly than insurance will pay for it,” she told Medscape Medical News. Even when insurance does cover it, there are often prior authorizations associated with the medications that delay families in being able to get the medications, she said.

Standard coverage authorizations for the SMART inhalers would be helpful, said Wheat. “Additionally, we need the support of schools — training and education may be needed for the school nurses to support the children with these treatment plans.”

Single fixes will not do it, King agreed. “It takes a coordinated bundle.” On the clinician side, practical, hands-on support like practice facilitation, feedback, and brief educational outreach will help move people from belief into routine use.

On the system side, building SMART-specific asthma action plans directly into the electronic health records removes a recurring point of friction. “And because pediatric asthma care is distributed across families and schools, caregiver-facing education and clear school communication tools are essential to help everyone move away from automatic albuterol use.”

Fortunately, the appetite for change is already there. “Clinicians are not skeptical of the evidence,” King said. “This is an implementation challenge, not a debate about whether SMART works, and that is a hopeful place to start, because implementation problems are solvable with the right tools and support.”

Partnerships with professional societies are essential to moving this into national practice, King added. “SMART sits at the intersection of primary care, allergy, and pulmonology, so collaboration across those communities matters.”

This research was supported by the American Lung Association, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Children’s Discovery Institute, a collaboration between the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, its foundation, and WashU Medicine.

King reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), consulting for Evernorth, and royalties from UpToDate. Coauthor James G. Krings disclosed funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and consulting fees or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including, among others, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi-Regeneron (manufacturers of SMART inhalers), Aerogen, and Genentech/Roche. Aimes S. James reported receiving funding from the NIH and the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. All other authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Wheat reported having no conflicts of interest.

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

Single maintenance and relief therapy (SMART) is underutilized in asthmatic children treated in primary care, a survey-based clinician study in Pediatrics found.

SMART uses a single inhaler combining an inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol, a rapid-acting bronchodilator. Patients use it for daily maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, which reduces flare-ups and simplifies treatment. Despite high awareness and acceptance of SMART’s efficacy and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement, primary care survey respondents reported that implementation of these single inhalers faces multiple roadblocks.

These barriers include insurance coverage, workflow constraints, lack of specific action plans, and resistance to switching from separate short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) therapy, according to investigators led by Allison A. King, MD, MPH, PhD, professor and Fred M. Saigh Distinguished Chair in Pediatric Research at WashU Medicine in St. Louis and director of the WashU Medicine Pediatric and Adolescent Ambulatory Research Consortium (WU PAARC).

“When I took on leadership of WU PAARC about 2 years ago, one of the first things we did was ask the community pediatricians in our network what they most needed to improve care in their own practices. SMART for asthma rose to the top of their list,” King told Medscape Medical News.

The clinical backdrop made it compelling since SMART reduces severe asthma exacerbations by about a third and is now recommended in US and international guidelines for children as young as 4 or 5, she said. “Yet most children with asthma are cared for in primary care, and we knew very little about whether and how SMART was actually being used there. We set out to understand the gap between strong evidence and everyday practice.”

The Study

Conducted during August and September 2025 among pediatric clinicians affiliated with the practice-based WU PAARC, the study invited 189 clinicians to participate. Of these, 52 responded (79% suburban practitioners), and 24 participated in semi-structured follow-up interviews.

“Our respondents skewed suburban and cared for relatively few Medicaid-insured children, so the findings may underrepresent clinicians in higher-Medicaid settings, where coverage and prior-authorization issues can play out differently,” said King. “That’s something we want to address directly in future work.”

While nearly all respondents reported routinely managing the core aspects of asthma treatment, including action plans, only 63% reported providing SMART-tailored action plans, which emerged as a key barrier across different care settings.

Two findings in particular caught the investigators’ attention: the relative absence of SMART-specific asthma action plans and the real difficulty of helping families let go of trusted SABA rescue inhalers, King said. “The pediatric context, where care is shared across parents, schools, and other caregivers, added a layer that adult studies simply do not capture.”

Offering her perspective on the study but involved in it, Santina J. Wheat, MD, MPH, physician in the Division of Family Medicine at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, noted that while SMART is easier to use for families because there are fewer medications to worry about, the biggest barrier remains insurance approval.

“When SMART is used correctly, families run out of the medication more quickly than insurance will pay for it,” she told Medscape Medical News. Even when insurance does cover it, there are often prior authorizations associated with the medications that delay families in being able to get the medications, she said.

Standard coverage authorizations for the SMART inhalers would be helpful, said Wheat. “Additionally, we need the support of schools — training and education may be needed for the school nurses to support the children with these treatment plans.”

Single fixes will not do it, King agreed. “It takes a coordinated bundle.” On the clinician side, practical, hands-on support like practice facilitation, feedback, and brief educational outreach will help move people from belief into routine use.

On the system side, building SMART-specific asthma action plans directly into the electronic health records removes a recurring point of friction. “And because pediatric asthma care is distributed across families and schools, caregiver-facing education and clear school communication tools are essential to help everyone move away from automatic albuterol use.”

Fortunately, the appetite for change is already there. “Clinicians are not skeptical of the evidence,” King said. “This is an implementation challenge, not a debate about whether SMART works, and that is a hopeful place to start, because implementation problems are solvable with the right tools and support.”

Partnerships with professional societies are essential to moving this into national practice, King added. “SMART sits at the intersection of primary care, allergy, and pulmonology, so collaboration across those communities matters.”

This research was supported by the American Lung Association, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and the Children’s Discovery Institute, a collaboration between the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, its foundation, and WashU Medicine.

King reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), consulting for Evernorth, and royalties from UpToDate. Coauthor James G. Krings disclosed funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and consulting fees or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including, among others, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi-Regeneron (manufacturers of SMART inhalers), Aerogen, and Genentech/Roche. Aimes S. James reported receiving funding from the NIH and the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. All other authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Wheat reported having no conflicts of interest.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

SMART Program Underutilized for Kids in Primary Asthma Care

Display Headline

SMART Program Underutilized for Kids in Primary Asthma Care

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Physical and Mental Factors Promote Poor COPD Inhaler Technique

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Physical and Mental Factors Promote Poor COPD Inhaler Technique

Cognitive impairment, manual dexterity, and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow are associated with inadequate inhaler technique and poor outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on new data from about 500 individuals.

Despite worldwide use of handheld delivery systems in the treatment of COPD, data on how patient factors affect inhaler technique with different device types are limited, said lead author Donald A. Mahler, MD, a pulmonologist and emeritus professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Misuse of inhalers can lead to inadequate medication delivery and an increase in COPD symptoms, the researchers noted.

In a study known as INHALE published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Mahler et al examined the impact of cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on inhaler technique. The multicenter study population included 503 outpatients aged ≥ 60 years with smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a diagnosis of COPD. The median age was 70 years, 55% were men, 28% were current smokers, and the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 46% predicted.

Participants were assessed at baseline for demographics and type of inhalers, and their spirometry and peak inspiratory flow were measured on a subsequent visit 2-21 days later. Participants were instructed not to use their inhalers prior to the second visit. At the second visit, participants were asked to use their inhalers on-site, instructed to do “as you do at home,” during which time they were observed by the researchers and critiqued on their technique via a checklist. The items included preparing the device (opening the inhaler and cap), breathing out completely, positioning teeth and lips on the mouthpiece, breathing in slowly and deeply without stopping, and holding the breath for 5-10 seconds or as long as possible.

The types of handheld devices included pressurized metered dose inhalers (60%), dry powder inhalers (59%), and slow mist inhalers (18%). Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and dexterity was measured using the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT). About 10% participants met criteria for cognitive impairment (MMSE score < 24), 34.8% demonstrated nonfunctional manual dexterity (FDT > 50 seconds), and 20.5% had a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFr < 60 L/min).

Overall, 71% of participants met criteria for acceptable inhaler technique (four or five items satisfactory) based on the checklist.

Among 103 participants who met criteria for unacceptable inhaler technique (≥ 2 items unsatisfactory), cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFrs were significantly and independently associated with poor technique (P = .0001, P = .0152, P = .014, respectively).

The individuals with poor technique also experienced smaller improvements in lung function after using their prescribed bronchodilator medications, with an average improvement in FEV1 of 69 mL at 30 minutes after inhalation compared to 105 mL among patients with acceptable technique.

Notably, satisfactory performance on the “hold your breath” technique item was the only technique that improved acute bronchodilation compared to unsatisfactory performance, which was surprising, Mahler said. “This directive or instruction needs to be emphasized when educating patients on how to use their inhalers,” he noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on whether participants were instructed on proper inhaler use and possible inconsistency of assessment across the multiple study sites.

However, the results provide evidence of the importance of a patient’s cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on effective inhaler use and support the need for healthcare professionals to consider these factors when selecting an inhaler delivery system, said Mahler. “It is most important that patients hold their breath for as long as possible after inhaling their medication from a handheld device to optimally open their airways,” he said.

“Although algorithms are available to guide healthcare professionals for inhaler selection, one or more of these algorithms needs to be tested in clinical practice to assess whether such an approach provides additional benefit for patients with COPD,” Mahler added.

Check Technique in Advance of Inhaler Selection

Although inhalers are a cornerstone therapy for COPD, many patients’ poor technique reduces the efficacy of these devices, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, ATSF, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“It is crucial to determine which specific patient-related factors are independently linked to poor technique, as identifying these elements may allow targeted interventions and selection of optimal device delivery systems for high-risk patients,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study.

The association between cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFr and unacceptable technique are not surprising, said Baldomero. “Handheld devices demand precise mental step sequence recall, coordinated hand-finger manipulation, and sufficient physical inhalation strength to separate and deliver the medication. These results validate that baseline physiological and cognitive limitations directly impair a patient’s mechanical ability to operate standard inhalers successfully,” she said.

Consequently, inhaler prescriptions must be tailored to a patient’s physical and cognitive abilities, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach, Baldomero emphasized. “Clinicians should evaluate technique, prioritizing the ‘hold your breath’ step, which was uniquely tied to significant bronchodilation benefits,” she said. For patients identified with cognitive or dexterity limitations, consider alternative delivery systems, such as nebulized therapies, she added.

The real-world rates of cognitive and dexterity impairments in COPD inhaler users are likely higher than those seen in the current study, said Baldomero. In addition, the findings were limited by a lack of data on whether patients had received prior formal device training, and a lack of data on long-term clinical outcomes, she noted. “Future research should focus on validating standard screening tools for clinics and establishing clear, evidence-based guidelines for choosing alternative delivery systems,” Baldomero said.

The study was supported by the COPD Foundation, Theravance Biopharma LLC, and Viatris. Disclosure information for the authors is available in the original study publication. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Publications
Topics

Cognitive impairment, manual dexterity, and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow are associated with inadequate inhaler technique and poor outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on new data from about 500 individuals.

Despite worldwide use of handheld delivery systems in the treatment of COPD, data on how patient factors affect inhaler technique with different device types are limited, said lead author Donald A. Mahler, MD, a pulmonologist and emeritus professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Misuse of inhalers can lead to inadequate medication delivery and an increase in COPD symptoms, the researchers noted.

In a study known as INHALE published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Mahler et al examined the impact of cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on inhaler technique. The multicenter study population included 503 outpatients aged ≥ 60 years with smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a diagnosis of COPD. The median age was 70 years, 55% were men, 28% were current smokers, and the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 46% predicted.

Participants were assessed at baseline for demographics and type of inhalers, and their spirometry and peak inspiratory flow were measured on a subsequent visit 2-21 days later. Participants were instructed not to use their inhalers prior to the second visit. At the second visit, participants were asked to use their inhalers on-site, instructed to do “as you do at home,” during which time they were observed by the researchers and critiqued on their technique via a checklist. The items included preparing the device (opening the inhaler and cap), breathing out completely, positioning teeth and lips on the mouthpiece, breathing in slowly and deeply without stopping, and holding the breath for 5-10 seconds or as long as possible.

The types of handheld devices included pressurized metered dose inhalers (60%), dry powder inhalers (59%), and slow mist inhalers (18%). Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and dexterity was measured using the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT). About 10% participants met criteria for cognitive impairment (MMSE score < 24), 34.8% demonstrated nonfunctional manual dexterity (FDT > 50 seconds), and 20.5% had a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFr < 60 L/min).

Overall, 71% of participants met criteria for acceptable inhaler technique (four or five items satisfactory) based on the checklist.

Among 103 participants who met criteria for unacceptable inhaler technique (≥ 2 items unsatisfactory), cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFrs were significantly and independently associated with poor technique (P = .0001, P = .0152, P = .014, respectively).

The individuals with poor technique also experienced smaller improvements in lung function after using their prescribed bronchodilator medications, with an average improvement in FEV1 of 69 mL at 30 minutes after inhalation compared to 105 mL among patients with acceptable technique.

Notably, satisfactory performance on the “hold your breath” technique item was the only technique that improved acute bronchodilation compared to unsatisfactory performance, which was surprising, Mahler said. “This directive or instruction needs to be emphasized when educating patients on how to use their inhalers,” he noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on whether participants were instructed on proper inhaler use and possible inconsistency of assessment across the multiple study sites.

However, the results provide evidence of the importance of a patient’s cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on effective inhaler use and support the need for healthcare professionals to consider these factors when selecting an inhaler delivery system, said Mahler. “It is most important that patients hold their breath for as long as possible after inhaling their medication from a handheld device to optimally open their airways,” he said.

“Although algorithms are available to guide healthcare professionals for inhaler selection, one or more of these algorithms needs to be tested in clinical practice to assess whether such an approach provides additional benefit for patients with COPD,” Mahler added.

Check Technique in Advance of Inhaler Selection

Although inhalers are a cornerstone therapy for COPD, many patients’ poor technique reduces the efficacy of these devices, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, ATSF, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“It is crucial to determine which specific patient-related factors are independently linked to poor technique, as identifying these elements may allow targeted interventions and selection of optimal device delivery systems for high-risk patients,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study.

The association between cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFr and unacceptable technique are not surprising, said Baldomero. “Handheld devices demand precise mental step sequence recall, coordinated hand-finger manipulation, and sufficient physical inhalation strength to separate and deliver the medication. These results validate that baseline physiological and cognitive limitations directly impair a patient’s mechanical ability to operate standard inhalers successfully,” she said.

Consequently, inhaler prescriptions must be tailored to a patient’s physical and cognitive abilities, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach, Baldomero emphasized. “Clinicians should evaluate technique, prioritizing the ‘hold your breath’ step, which was uniquely tied to significant bronchodilation benefits,” she said. For patients identified with cognitive or dexterity limitations, consider alternative delivery systems, such as nebulized therapies, she added.

The real-world rates of cognitive and dexterity impairments in COPD inhaler users are likely higher than those seen in the current study, said Baldomero. In addition, the findings were limited by a lack of data on whether patients had received prior formal device training, and a lack of data on long-term clinical outcomes, she noted. “Future research should focus on validating standard screening tools for clinics and establishing clear, evidence-based guidelines for choosing alternative delivery systems,” Baldomero said.

The study was supported by the COPD Foundation, Theravance Biopharma LLC, and Viatris. Disclosure information for the authors is available in the original study publication. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Cognitive impairment, manual dexterity, and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow are associated with inadequate inhaler technique and poor outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on new data from about 500 individuals.

Despite worldwide use of handheld delivery systems in the treatment of COPD, data on how patient factors affect inhaler technique with different device types are limited, said lead author Donald A. Mahler, MD, a pulmonologist and emeritus professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, New Hampshire.

Misuse of inhalers can lead to inadequate medication delivery and an increase in COPD symptoms, the researchers noted.

In a study known as INHALE published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Mahler et al examined the impact of cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on inhaler technique. The multicenter study population included 503 outpatients aged ≥ 60 years with smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a diagnosis of COPD. The median age was 70 years, 55% were men, 28% were current smokers, and the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 46% predicted.

Participants were assessed at baseline for demographics and type of inhalers, and their spirometry and peak inspiratory flow were measured on a subsequent visit 2-21 days later. Participants were instructed not to use their inhalers prior to the second visit. At the second visit, participants were asked to use their inhalers on-site, instructed to do “as you do at home,” during which time they were observed by the researchers and critiqued on their technique via a checklist. The items included preparing the device (opening the inhaler and cap), breathing out completely, positioning teeth and lips on the mouthpiece, breathing in slowly and deeply without stopping, and holding the breath for 5-10 seconds or as long as possible.

The types of handheld devices included pressurized metered dose inhalers (60%), dry powder inhalers (59%), and slow mist inhalers (18%). Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and dexterity was measured using the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT). About 10% participants met criteria for cognitive impairment (MMSE score < 24), 34.8% demonstrated nonfunctional manual dexterity (FDT > 50 seconds), and 20.5% had a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFr < 60 L/min).

Overall, 71% of participants met criteria for acceptable inhaler technique (four or five items satisfactory) based on the checklist.

Among 103 participants who met criteria for unacceptable inhaler technique (≥ 2 items unsatisfactory), cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFrs were significantly and independently associated with poor technique (P = .0001, P = .0152, P = .014, respectively).

The individuals with poor technique also experienced smaller improvements in lung function after using their prescribed bronchodilator medications, with an average improvement in FEV1 of 69 mL at 30 minutes after inhalation compared to 105 mL among patients with acceptable technique.

Notably, satisfactory performance on the “hold your breath” technique item was the only technique that improved acute bronchodilation compared to unsatisfactory performance, which was surprising, Mahler said. “This directive or instruction needs to be emphasized when educating patients on how to use their inhalers,” he noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on whether participants were instructed on proper inhaler use and possible inconsistency of assessment across the multiple study sites.

However, the results provide evidence of the importance of a patient’s cognitive function, manual dexterity, and inhalational ability on effective inhaler use and support the need for healthcare professionals to consider these factors when selecting an inhaler delivery system, said Mahler. “It is most important that patients hold their breath for as long as possible after inhaling their medication from a handheld device to optimally open their airways,” he said.

“Although algorithms are available to guide healthcare professionals for inhaler selection, one or more of these algorithms needs to be tested in clinical practice to assess whether such an approach provides additional benefit for patients with COPD,” Mahler added.

Check Technique in Advance of Inhaler Selection

Although inhalers are a cornerstone therapy for COPD, many patients’ poor technique reduces the efficacy of these devices, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, ATSF, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“It is crucial to determine which specific patient-related factors are independently linked to poor technique, as identifying these elements may allow targeted interventions and selection of optimal device delivery systems for high-risk patients,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study.

The association between cognitive impairment, nonfunctional manual dexterity, and suboptimal PIFr and unacceptable technique are not surprising, said Baldomero. “Handheld devices demand precise mental step sequence recall, coordinated hand-finger manipulation, and sufficient physical inhalation strength to separate and deliver the medication. These results validate that baseline physiological and cognitive limitations directly impair a patient’s mechanical ability to operate standard inhalers successfully,” she said.

Consequently, inhaler prescriptions must be tailored to a patient’s physical and cognitive abilities, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach, Baldomero emphasized. “Clinicians should evaluate technique, prioritizing the ‘hold your breath’ step, which was uniquely tied to significant bronchodilation benefits,” she said. For patients identified with cognitive or dexterity limitations, consider alternative delivery systems, such as nebulized therapies, she added.

The real-world rates of cognitive and dexterity impairments in COPD inhaler users are likely higher than those seen in the current study, said Baldomero. In addition, the findings were limited by a lack of data on whether patients had received prior formal device training, and a lack of data on long-term clinical outcomes, she noted. “Future research should focus on validating standard screening tools for clinics and establishing clear, evidence-based guidelines for choosing alternative delivery systems,” Baldomero said.

The study was supported by the COPD Foundation, Theravance Biopharma LLC, and Viatris. Disclosure information for the authors is available in the original study publication. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Physical and Mental Factors Promote Poor COPD Inhaler Technique

Display Headline

Physical and Mental Factors Promote Poor COPD Inhaler Technique

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date