Opinion

Primary care physicians know the complexities of treating older patients, from increased complications from medications and procedures to comorbidities stemming from having multiple medical conditions. The Beers Criteria were established by the American Geriatrics Society as a guide for physicians about medications that may possess more risks than benefits in older patients, specifically those aged 65 years and older.

There are approximately 100 medications on the list. Criteria used to establish the list include medications to avoid over the age of 65 in an outpatient setting, medications to avoid in certain medical conditions, medications to avoid that may interact with other medications, medications to avoid with renal impairment, and medications to avoid where harmful side effects outweigh the possible benefits. The American Geriatrics Society updates the list as new published evidence becomes available.

The latest updates to the Beers Criteria include several medications commonly used in primary care. Regarding anticoagulation, warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy and apixaban should be used in patients with reduced renal function. These guidelines looked particularly at antithrombotic medications because of new evidence arising in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. In addition to the previous recommendations, the use of aspirin is no longer recommended in older adults.

The latest guidelines also make recommendations regarding certain diabetic medications as well as combinations to avoid. The Beers Criteria now place all sulfonylureas in the class to avoid, and not just the long-acting formulations as was recommended in the previous guidelines. If a sulfonylurea is necessary, use of a short-acting one is advised. Several other classes of medications were addressed and doctors practicing primary care medicine should be aware of these guidelines, especially as the population continues to age.

Overall, these guidelines are a great resource for treating patients aged 65 and older. It is important to keep in mind that they look at a whole population of patients and it is not patient specific. As primary care doctors, we know many of our patients don’t fit into the textbook box. While these guidelines consider the dangers of a certain medication, sometimes the benefits do outweigh the risks at the patient-specific level.

As doctors, we are trained to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing any medication to our patients. These guidelines shouldn’t be approached as a do or don’t list but should be considered in the overall plan when prescribing for our patients. Sometimes, these medications can be used with careful observation by the prescribing physician. When they are utilized, we need to make the patient aware of specific side effects and what to watch out for. We need to make these decisions together with our patients and their caregivers.

For example, we all know how agonizing taking care of an older dementia patient can be, and sometimes there is nothing left to try except one of the medications on the list.

An additional practical point not considered in the guidelines is real-world use. Often, certain medications are not covered by a patient’s insurance company. The cost can be prohibitive to use the recommended agent. We are left in the middle to go off script with a medication that the patient may be able to access easily or keep pushing for the most appropriate medication for the patient. Unfortunately, in our current healthcare climate, prior authorizations can sometimes take weeks to obtain (or to be denied). For most of the conditions we treat in our older patients, it is not safe to leave them without any medication while we fight this prior authorizations war.

Our older patients often have multiple specialists as well. Each of these specialists may be prescribing different medications. It is imperative that we know all the medications a patient is taking so that we may look for potentially dangerous drug interactions. Many patients don’t remember the names of all their medications, nor do they realize that many classes of medications are “little white pills.” Asking them to bring their pill bottles to every visit can be a great help in searching out interactions.

That being said, the Beers Criteria do an excellent job reviewing the latest evidence and developing guidelines. As primary care physicians, we have never been busier and having someone do the research and set it forth so clearly is a great tool. We should be aware of the Beers Criteria and the medications and interactions listed there.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no conflicts of interest.

Primary care physicians know the complexities of treating older patients, from increased complications from medications and procedures to comorbidities stemming from having multiple medical conditions. The Beers Criteria were established by the American Geriatrics Society as a guide for physicians about medications that may possess more risks than benefits in older patients, specifically those aged 65 years and older.

There are approximately 100 medications on the list. Criteria used to establish the list include medications to avoid over the age of 65 in an outpatient setting, medications to avoid in certain medical conditions, medications to avoid that may interact with other medications, medications to avoid with renal impairment, and medications to avoid where harmful side effects outweigh the possible benefits. The American Geriatrics Society updates the list as new published evidence becomes available.

The latest updates to the Beers Criteria include several medications commonly used in primary care. Regarding anticoagulation, warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy and apixaban should be used in patients with reduced renal function. These guidelines looked particularly at antithrombotic medications because of new evidence arising in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. In addition to the previous recommendations, the use of aspirin is no longer recommended in older adults.

The latest guidelines also make recommendations regarding certain diabetic medications as well as combinations to avoid. The Beers Criteria now place all sulfonylureas in the class to avoid, and not just the long-acting formulations as was recommended in the previous guidelines. If a sulfonylurea is necessary, use of a short-acting one is advised. Several other classes of medications were addressed and doctors practicing primary care medicine should be aware of these guidelines, especially as the population continues to age.

Overall, these guidelines are a great resource for treating patients aged 65 and older. It is important to keep in mind that they look at a whole population of patients and it is not patient specific. As primary care doctors, we know many of our patients don’t fit into the textbook box. While these guidelines consider the dangers of a certain medication, sometimes the benefits do outweigh the risks at the patient-specific level.

As doctors, we are trained to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing any medication to our patients. These guidelines shouldn’t be approached as a do or don’t list but should be considered in the overall plan when prescribing for our patients. Sometimes, these medications can be used with careful observation by the prescribing physician. When they are utilized, we need to make the patient aware of specific side effects and what to watch out for. We need to make these decisions together with our patients and their caregivers.

For example, we all know how agonizing taking care of an older dementia patient can be, and sometimes there is nothing left to try except one of the medications on the list.

An additional practical point not considered in the guidelines is real-world use. Often, certain medications are not covered by a patient’s insurance company. The cost can be prohibitive to use the recommended agent. We are left in the middle to go off script with a medication that the patient may be able to access easily or keep pushing for the most appropriate medication for the patient. Unfortunately, in our current healthcare climate, prior authorizations can sometimes take weeks to obtain (or to be denied). For most of the conditions we treat in our older patients, it is not safe to leave them without any medication while we fight this prior authorizations war.

Our older patients often have multiple specialists as well. Each of these specialists may be prescribing different medications. It is imperative that we know all the medications a patient is taking so that we may look for potentially dangerous drug interactions. Many patients don’t remember the names of all their medications, nor do they realize that many classes of medications are “little white pills.” Asking them to bring their pill bottles to every visit can be a great help in searching out interactions.

That being said, the Beers Criteria do an excellent job reviewing the latest evidence and developing guidelines. As primary care physicians, we have never been busier and having someone do the research and set it forth so clearly is a great tool. We should be aware of the Beers Criteria and the medications and interactions listed there.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no conflicts of interest.

Primary care physicians know the complexities of treating older patients, from increased complications from medications and procedures to comorbidities stemming from having multiple medical conditions. The Beers Criteria were established by the American Geriatrics Society as a guide for physicians about medications that may possess more risks than benefits in older patients, specifically those aged 65 years and older.

There are approximately 100 medications on the list. Criteria used to establish the list include medications to avoid over the age of 65 in an outpatient setting, medications to avoid in certain medical conditions, medications to avoid that may interact with other medications, medications to avoid with renal impairment, and medications to avoid where harmful side effects outweigh the possible benefits. The American Geriatrics Society updates the list as new published evidence becomes available.

The latest updates to the Beers Criteria include several medications commonly used in primary care. Regarding anticoagulation, warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy and apixaban should be used in patients with reduced renal function. These guidelines looked particularly at antithrombotic medications because of new evidence arising in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. In addition to the previous recommendations, the use of aspirin is no longer recommended in older adults.

The latest guidelines also make recommendations regarding certain diabetic medications as well as combinations to avoid. The Beers Criteria now place all sulfonylureas in the class to avoid, and not just the long-acting formulations as was recommended in the previous guidelines. If a sulfonylurea is necessary, use of a short-acting one is advised. Several other classes of medications were addressed and doctors practicing primary care medicine should be aware of these guidelines, especially as the population continues to age.

Overall, these guidelines are a great resource for treating patients aged 65 and older. It is important to keep in mind that they look at a whole population of patients and it is not patient specific. As primary care doctors, we know many of our patients don’t fit into the textbook box. While these guidelines consider the dangers of a certain medication, sometimes the benefits do outweigh the risks at the patient-specific level.

As doctors, we are trained to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing any medication to our patients. These guidelines shouldn’t be approached as a do or don’t list but should be considered in the overall plan when prescribing for our patients. Sometimes, these medications can be used with careful observation by the prescribing physician. When they are utilized, we need to make the patient aware of specific side effects and what to watch out for. We need to make these decisions together with our patients and their caregivers.

For example, we all know how agonizing taking care of an older dementia patient can be, and sometimes there is nothing left to try except one of the medications on the list.

An additional practical point not considered in the guidelines is real-world use. Often, certain medications are not covered by a patient’s insurance company. The cost can be prohibitive to use the recommended agent. We are left in the middle to go off script with a medication that the patient may be able to access easily or keep pushing for the most appropriate medication for the patient. Unfortunately, in our current healthcare climate, prior authorizations can sometimes take weeks to obtain (or to be denied). For most of the conditions we treat in our older patients, it is not safe to leave them without any medication while we fight this prior authorizations war.

Our older patients often have multiple specialists as well. Each of these specialists may be prescribing different medications. It is imperative that we know all the medications a patient is taking so that we may look for potentially dangerous drug interactions. Many patients don’t remember the names of all their medications, nor do they realize that many classes of medications are “little white pills.” Asking them to bring their pill bottles to every visit can be a great help in searching out interactions.

That being said, the Beers Criteria do an excellent job reviewing the latest evidence and developing guidelines. As primary care physicians, we have never been busier and having someone do the research and set it forth so clearly is a great tool. We should be aware of the Beers Criteria and the medications and interactions listed there.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no conflicts of interest.

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has issued a warning to travelers in areas in South and Central America and the Caribbean affected by a current outbreak of Oropouche virus (OROV) disease. The ECDC said that there had been more than 8000 cases reported in these areas since January, with 19 imported cases reported in Europe for the first time in June and July. Of these, 12 were in Spain, five were in Italy, and two were in Germany. 

The ECDC’s Threat Assessment Brief of Aug. 9 said that one of those affected had traveled to Brazil and the other 18 to Cuba; however, outbreaks have also been reported this year in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Though the overall risk for infection to European travelers to OROV-epidemic countries was assessed as moderate, it was higher in the more affected municipalities of the northern states of Brazil and/or the Amazon region, and/or if personal protection measures are not taken.

An editorial published Aug. 8 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases described OROV as a “mysterious threat,” which there is limited knowledge about despite some half a million cases recorded since it was first detected in Trinidad and Tobago in 1955. 

OROV is transmitted primarily through bites from infected midges (Culicoides paraensis). However, some mosquitoes species can also spread the virus, which causes symptoms very similar to other arbovirus diseases from the same regions, such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus infection. 

Most cases are mild, but meningitis and encephalitis can occur as well as possible fetal death and deformities after infection in pregnancy. Last month, the first fatal cases were reported in two young Brazilian women who, concerningly, had no comorbidities.

This news organization asked Jan Felix Drexler, MD, of the Institute of Virology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, Germany, who has studied the emergence of Oropouche fever in Latin America, what clinicians should know about OROV disease.

What are the main symptoms of OROV disease for which clinicians should be alert?

The main symptoms are not different from other arboviral infections, ie, fever, maybe joint and muscle pain, maybe rash. The problem is that we do not know how often severe disease may occur because we do not know whether the severe cases that have been postulated, including death in apparently healthy people and congenital infection, are due to increased testing; an altered virus; or an altered, more intense circulation (so that many more infections simply lead to rare severe cases appearing). Be alert and ask for testing in your patients. 

What is the differential diagnosis if a recent traveler to affected regions presents with symptoms? Are there any clues to suggest whether the disease is Oropouche as opposed to Zika, etc.?

The main message is: Do not assume a particular infection based on clinical symptoms. If your patient is returning from or living in an endemic area, consider OROV disease in the differential diagnosis.

What personal protective measures should clinicians advise travelers in affected areas to take? Do these differ from normal mosquito precautions?

Repellents are extremely important as usual. However, there are differences. Mosquito nets’ hole sizes need to be smaller than those used against the vectors of malaria or dengue; in other words, they need to have a higher mesh. The problem is that nets with high mesh are complicated in very hot and humid conditions because they also limit ventilation. Travelers should discuss with local suppliers about the best trade-off.

The risk for midge bites is likely highest at dawn and dusk in still and humid conditions. So on the one hand, one could recommend avoiding those areas and being outside during those times of the day. On the other hand, specific recommendations cannot be made robustly because we cannot exclude other invertebrate vectors at current knowledge. Some studies have implicated that mosquitoes may also transmit the virus. If that holds true, then we are back to reducing any bite.

Should pregnant women be advised to avoid travel to affected regions?

Not immediately, but caution must be taken. We simply do not have sufficient data to gauge the risk for potential congenital infection. Much more epidemiologic data and controlled infection experiments will be required to make evidence-based recommendations.

All the cases reported in Europe so far were imported from Cuba and Brazil. Is there any risk for local transmission, eg, via midges/mosquitoes that might hitch a ride on an aircraft, as in cases of airport malaria?

Not immediately, but it cannot be excluded. We know very little about the infection intensity in the vectors. Controlled infection experiments, including robustness of vectors against commonly used insecticides in airplanes, need to be done.

What is the risk for an animal reservoir emerging in Europe?

We do not know, but there is also no reason for ringing the alarm bells. Controlled infection experiments and surveillance will be required.

Is treatment purely supportive or are there any specific agents worth trying in case of severe symptoms/neurologic involvement?

No specific treatment can be recommended as is. However, severe dengue illustrates the relevance of supportive treatment, which is hugely effective in reducing mortality.

The Lancet paper states: “Several laboratory tests have been developed but robust commercial tests are hardly available.” How likely is it that laboratories in Europe will have the capability to test for the Oropouche organism? 

European laboratory networks have already taken action, and testing is now available at least in the major and reference laboratories. If a clinician asks for OROV testing, they will probably get a robust answer in a reasonable timespan. Of course, that can be improved once we have more cases and more laboratories will be equipped for testing.

Is there anything else you think clinicians should be aware of?

The most important is to think beyond the textbooks we know from medical school. Things change rapidly in a connected world under altered climate conditions.

Dr. Drexler has no conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has issued a warning to travelers in areas in South and Central America and the Caribbean affected by a current outbreak of Oropouche virus (OROV) disease. The ECDC said that there had been more than 8000 cases reported in these areas since January, with 19 imported cases reported in Europe for the first time in June and July. Of these, 12 were in Spain, five were in Italy, and two were in Germany. 

The ECDC’s Threat Assessment Brief of Aug. 9 said that one of those affected had traveled to Brazil and the other 18 to Cuba; however, outbreaks have also been reported this year in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Though the overall risk for infection to European travelers to OROV-epidemic countries was assessed as moderate, it was higher in the more affected municipalities of the northern states of Brazil and/or the Amazon region, and/or if personal protection measures are not taken.

An editorial published Aug. 8 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases described OROV as a “mysterious threat,” which there is limited knowledge about despite some half a million cases recorded since it was first detected in Trinidad and Tobago in 1955. 

OROV is transmitted primarily through bites from infected midges (Culicoides paraensis). However, some mosquitoes species can also spread the virus, which causes symptoms very similar to other arbovirus diseases from the same regions, such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus infection. 

Most cases are mild, but meningitis and encephalitis can occur as well as possible fetal death and deformities after infection in pregnancy. Last month, the first fatal cases were reported in two young Brazilian women who, concerningly, had no comorbidities.

This news organization asked Jan Felix Drexler, MD, of the Institute of Virology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, Germany, who has studied the emergence of Oropouche fever in Latin America, what clinicians should know about OROV disease.

What are the main symptoms of OROV disease for which clinicians should be alert?

The main symptoms are not different from other arboviral infections, ie, fever, maybe joint and muscle pain, maybe rash. The problem is that we do not know how often severe disease may occur because we do not know whether the severe cases that have been postulated, including death in apparently healthy people and congenital infection, are due to increased testing; an altered virus; or an altered, more intense circulation (so that many more infections simply lead to rare severe cases appearing). Be alert and ask for testing in your patients. 

What is the differential diagnosis if a recent traveler to affected regions presents with symptoms? Are there any clues to suggest whether the disease is Oropouche as opposed to Zika, etc.?

The main message is: Do not assume a particular infection based on clinical symptoms. If your patient is returning from or living in an endemic area, consider OROV disease in the differential diagnosis.

What personal protective measures should clinicians advise travelers in affected areas to take? Do these differ from normal mosquito precautions?

Repellents are extremely important as usual. However, there are differences. Mosquito nets’ hole sizes need to be smaller than those used against the vectors of malaria or dengue; in other words, they need to have a higher mesh. The problem is that nets with high mesh are complicated in very hot and humid conditions because they also limit ventilation. Travelers should discuss with local suppliers about the best trade-off.

The risk for midge bites is likely highest at dawn and dusk in still and humid conditions. So on the one hand, one could recommend avoiding those areas and being outside during those times of the day. On the other hand, specific recommendations cannot be made robustly because we cannot exclude other invertebrate vectors at current knowledge. Some studies have implicated that mosquitoes may also transmit the virus. If that holds true, then we are back to reducing any bite.

Should pregnant women be advised to avoid travel to affected regions?

Not immediately, but caution must be taken. We simply do not have sufficient data to gauge the risk for potential congenital infection. Much more epidemiologic data and controlled infection experiments will be required to make evidence-based recommendations.

All the cases reported in Europe so far were imported from Cuba and Brazil. Is there any risk for local transmission, eg, via midges/mosquitoes that might hitch a ride on an aircraft, as in cases of airport malaria?

Not immediately, but it cannot be excluded. We know very little about the infection intensity in the vectors. Controlled infection experiments, including robustness of vectors against commonly used insecticides in airplanes, need to be done.

What is the risk for an animal reservoir emerging in Europe?

We do not know, but there is also no reason for ringing the alarm bells. Controlled infection experiments and surveillance will be required.

Is treatment purely supportive or are there any specific agents worth trying in case of severe symptoms/neurologic involvement?

No specific treatment can be recommended as is. However, severe dengue illustrates the relevance of supportive treatment, which is hugely effective in reducing mortality.

The Lancet paper states: “Several laboratory tests have been developed but robust commercial tests are hardly available.” How likely is it that laboratories in Europe will have the capability to test for the Oropouche organism? 

European laboratory networks have already taken action, and testing is now available at least in the major and reference laboratories. If a clinician asks for OROV testing, they will probably get a robust answer in a reasonable timespan. Of course, that can be improved once we have more cases and more laboratories will be equipped for testing.

Is there anything else you think clinicians should be aware of?

The most important is to think beyond the textbooks we know from medical school. Things change rapidly in a connected world under altered climate conditions.

Dr. Drexler has no conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has issued a warning to travelers in areas in South and Central America and the Caribbean affected by a current outbreak of Oropouche virus (OROV) disease. The ECDC said that there had been more than 8000 cases reported in these areas since January, with 19 imported cases reported in Europe for the first time in June and July. Of these, 12 were in Spain, five were in Italy, and two were in Germany. 

The ECDC’s Threat Assessment Brief of Aug. 9 said that one of those affected had traveled to Brazil and the other 18 to Cuba; however, outbreaks have also been reported this year in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Though the overall risk for infection to European travelers to OROV-epidemic countries was assessed as moderate, it was higher in the more affected municipalities of the northern states of Brazil and/or the Amazon region, and/or if personal protection measures are not taken.

An editorial published Aug. 8 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases described OROV as a “mysterious threat,” which there is limited knowledge about despite some half a million cases recorded since it was first detected in Trinidad and Tobago in 1955. 

OROV is transmitted primarily through bites from infected midges (Culicoides paraensis). However, some mosquitoes species can also spread the virus, which causes symptoms very similar to other arbovirus diseases from the same regions, such as dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus infection. 

Most cases are mild, but meningitis and encephalitis can occur as well as possible fetal death and deformities after infection in pregnancy. Last month, the first fatal cases were reported in two young Brazilian women who, concerningly, had no comorbidities.

This news organization asked Jan Felix Drexler, MD, of the Institute of Virology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, Germany, who has studied the emergence of Oropouche fever in Latin America, what clinicians should know about OROV disease.

What are the main symptoms of OROV disease for which clinicians should be alert?

The main symptoms are not different from other arboviral infections, ie, fever, maybe joint and muscle pain, maybe rash. The problem is that we do not know how often severe disease may occur because we do not know whether the severe cases that have been postulated, including death in apparently healthy people and congenital infection, are due to increased testing; an altered virus; or an altered, more intense circulation (so that many more infections simply lead to rare severe cases appearing). Be alert and ask for testing in your patients. 

What is the differential diagnosis if a recent traveler to affected regions presents with symptoms? Are there any clues to suggest whether the disease is Oropouche as opposed to Zika, etc.?

The main message is: Do not assume a particular infection based on clinical symptoms. If your patient is returning from or living in an endemic area, consider OROV disease in the differential diagnosis.

What personal protective measures should clinicians advise travelers in affected areas to take? Do these differ from normal mosquito precautions?

Repellents are extremely important as usual. However, there are differences. Mosquito nets’ hole sizes need to be smaller than those used against the vectors of malaria or dengue; in other words, they need to have a higher mesh. The problem is that nets with high mesh are complicated in very hot and humid conditions because they also limit ventilation. Travelers should discuss with local suppliers about the best trade-off.

The risk for midge bites is likely highest at dawn and dusk in still and humid conditions. So on the one hand, one could recommend avoiding those areas and being outside during those times of the day. On the other hand, specific recommendations cannot be made robustly because we cannot exclude other invertebrate vectors at current knowledge. Some studies have implicated that mosquitoes may also transmit the virus. If that holds true, then we are back to reducing any bite.

Should pregnant women be advised to avoid travel to affected regions?

Not immediately, but caution must be taken. We simply do not have sufficient data to gauge the risk for potential congenital infection. Much more epidemiologic data and controlled infection experiments will be required to make evidence-based recommendations.

All the cases reported in Europe so far were imported from Cuba and Brazil. Is there any risk for local transmission, eg, via midges/mosquitoes that might hitch a ride on an aircraft, as in cases of airport malaria?

Not immediately, but it cannot be excluded. We know very little about the infection intensity in the vectors. Controlled infection experiments, including robustness of vectors against commonly used insecticides in airplanes, need to be done.

What is the risk for an animal reservoir emerging in Europe?

We do not know, but there is also no reason for ringing the alarm bells. Controlled infection experiments and surveillance will be required.

Is treatment purely supportive or are there any specific agents worth trying in case of severe symptoms/neurologic involvement?

No specific treatment can be recommended as is. However, severe dengue illustrates the relevance of supportive treatment, which is hugely effective in reducing mortality.

The Lancet paper states: “Several laboratory tests have been developed but robust commercial tests are hardly available.” How likely is it that laboratories in Europe will have the capability to test for the Oropouche organism? 

European laboratory networks have already taken action, and testing is now available at least in the major and reference laboratories. If a clinician asks for OROV testing, they will probably get a robust answer in a reasonable timespan. Of course, that can be improved once we have more cases and more laboratories will be equipped for testing.

Is there anything else you think clinicians should be aware of?

The most important is to think beyond the textbooks we know from medical school. Things change rapidly in a connected world under altered climate conditions.

Dr. Drexler has no conflicts of interest to declare.
 

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

Bicycles have been woven into my life since I first straddled a hand-me-down with a fan belt drive when I was 3. At age 12 my friend Ricky and I took a 250 mile–plus 2-night adventure on our 3-speed “English” style bikes. We still marvel that our parents let us do it when neither cell phones nor GPS existed.

I have always bike commuted to work, including the years when that involved a perilous navigation into Boston from the suburbs. In our mid-50s my wife and I biked from Washington state back here to Maine with another couple unsupported. We continue to do at least one self-guided cycle tour out of the country each year.

Not surprisingly, I keep a close eye on what’s happening in the bicycle market. For decades the trends have shifted back and forth between sleek road models and beefier off-roaders. There have been boom years here and there for the dealers and manufacturers, but nothing like what the bike industry is experiencing now with the arrival of e-bikes on the market. Driven primarily by electrification, micromobility ridership (which includes conventional bikes and scooters) has grown more than 50-fold over the last 10 years. Projections suggest the market’s value will be $300 billion by 2030.

It doesn’t take an MBA with a major in marketing to understand the broad appeal of electrification. Most adults have ridden a bicycle as children, but several decades of gap years has left many of them with a level of fitness that makes pedaling against the wind or up any incline difficult and unappealing. An e-bike can put even the least fitness conscious back in the saddle and open the options for outdoor recreation they haven’t dreamed of since childhood.

In large part the people flocking to e-bikes are retiree’s who thought they were “over the hill.” They are having so much fun they don’t care if the Lycra-clad “serious” cyclists notice the battery bulge in the frame on their e-bikes. Another group of e-bike adopters are motivated by the “greenness” of a fossil-fuel–free electric powered transportation which, with minimal compromise, can be used as they would a car around town and for longer commutes than they would have considered on a purely pedal-powered bicycle.

Unfortunately, there is a growing group of younger e-bike riders who are motivated and uninhibited by the potential that the power boost of a small electric motor can provide. And here is where the ugliness begins to intrude on what was otherwise a beautiful and expanding landscape. With the increase in e-bike popularity, there has been an understandable increase in injuries in all age groups. However, it is the young who are, not surprisingly, drawn to the speed, and with any vehicle – motorized or conventional – as speed increases so does the frequency and seriousness of accidents.

The term e-bike covers a broad range of vehicles, from those designated class 1, which require pedaling and are limited to 20 miles per hour, to class 3, which may have a throttle and unmodified can hit 28 mph. Class 2 bikes have a throttle that will allow the rider to reach 20 mph without pedaling. Modifying any class of e-bike can substantially increase its speed, but this is more common in classes 2 and 3. As an example, some very fast micromobiles are considered unclassified e-bikes and avoid being labeled motorcycles simply because they have pedals.

One has to give some credit to the e-bike industry for eventually adopting this classification system. But, we must give the rest of us, including parents and public safety officials, a failing grade for doing a poor job of translating these scores into enforceable regulations to protect both riders and pedestrians from serious injury.

On the governmental side only a little more than half of US states have used the three category classification to craft their regulations. Many jurisdictions have failed to differentiate between streets, sidewalks, and trails. Regulations vary from state to state, and many states leave it up to local communities. From my experience chairing our town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I can tell you that even “progressive” communities are struggling to decide who can ride what where. The result has been that people of all ages, but mostly adolescents, are traveling on busy streets and sidewalks at speeds that put themselves and pedestrians at risk.

On the parental side of the problem are families that have either allowed or enabled their children to ride class 2 and 3 e-bikes without proper safety equipment or consideration for the safety of the rest of the community. Currently, this is not much of a problem here in Maine thanks to the weather and the high price of e-bikes. However, I frequently visit an affluent community in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is not uncommon to see middle school children speeding along well in excess of 20 mph.

Unfortunately this is another example, like television and cell phone, in which our society has been unable to keep up with technology by molding the behavior of our children and/or creating enforceable rules that allow us to reap the benefits of new discoveries while minimizing the collateral damage that can accompany them.

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

Bicycles have been woven into my life since I first straddled a hand-me-down with a fan belt drive when I was 3. At age 12 my friend Ricky and I took a 250 mile–plus 2-night adventure on our 3-speed “English” style bikes. We still marvel that our parents let us do it when neither cell phones nor GPS existed.

I have always bike commuted to work, including the years when that involved a perilous navigation into Boston from the suburbs. In our mid-50s my wife and I biked from Washington state back here to Maine with another couple unsupported. We continue to do at least one self-guided cycle tour out of the country each year.

Not surprisingly, I keep a close eye on what’s happening in the bicycle market. For decades the trends have shifted back and forth between sleek road models and beefier off-roaders. There have been boom years here and there for the dealers and manufacturers, but nothing like what the bike industry is experiencing now with the arrival of e-bikes on the market. Driven primarily by electrification, micromobility ridership (which includes conventional bikes and scooters) has grown more than 50-fold over the last 10 years. Projections suggest the market’s value will be $300 billion by 2030.

It doesn’t take an MBA with a major in marketing to understand the broad appeal of electrification. Most adults have ridden a bicycle as children, but several decades of gap years has left many of them with a level of fitness that makes pedaling against the wind or up any incline difficult and unappealing. An e-bike can put even the least fitness conscious back in the saddle and open the options for outdoor recreation they haven’t dreamed of since childhood.

In large part the people flocking to e-bikes are retiree’s who thought they were “over the hill.” They are having so much fun they don’t care if the Lycra-clad “serious” cyclists notice the battery bulge in the frame on their e-bikes. Another group of e-bike adopters are motivated by the “greenness” of a fossil-fuel–free electric powered transportation which, with minimal compromise, can be used as they would a car around town and for longer commutes than they would have considered on a purely pedal-powered bicycle.

Unfortunately, there is a growing group of younger e-bike riders who are motivated and uninhibited by the potential that the power boost of a small electric motor can provide. And here is where the ugliness begins to intrude on what was otherwise a beautiful and expanding landscape. With the increase in e-bike popularity, there has been an understandable increase in injuries in all age groups. However, it is the young who are, not surprisingly, drawn to the speed, and with any vehicle – motorized or conventional – as speed increases so does the frequency and seriousness of accidents.

The term e-bike covers a broad range of vehicles, from those designated class 1, which require pedaling and are limited to 20 miles per hour, to class 3, which may have a throttle and unmodified can hit 28 mph. Class 2 bikes have a throttle that will allow the rider to reach 20 mph without pedaling. Modifying any class of e-bike can substantially increase its speed, but this is more common in classes 2 and 3. As an example, some very fast micromobiles are considered unclassified e-bikes and avoid being labeled motorcycles simply because they have pedals.

One has to give some credit to the e-bike industry for eventually adopting this classification system. But, we must give the rest of us, including parents and public safety officials, a failing grade for doing a poor job of translating these scores into enforceable regulations to protect both riders and pedestrians from serious injury.

On the governmental side only a little more than half of US states have used the three category classification to craft their regulations. Many jurisdictions have failed to differentiate between streets, sidewalks, and trails. Regulations vary from state to state, and many states leave it up to local communities. From my experience chairing our town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I can tell you that even “progressive” communities are struggling to decide who can ride what where. The result has been that people of all ages, but mostly adolescents, are traveling on busy streets and sidewalks at speeds that put themselves and pedestrians at risk.

On the parental side of the problem are families that have either allowed or enabled their children to ride class 2 and 3 e-bikes without proper safety equipment or consideration for the safety of the rest of the community. Currently, this is not much of a problem here in Maine thanks to the weather and the high price of e-bikes. However, I frequently visit an affluent community in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is not uncommon to see middle school children speeding along well in excess of 20 mph.

Unfortunately this is another example, like television and cell phone, in which our society has been unable to keep up with technology by molding the behavior of our children and/or creating enforceable rules that allow us to reap the benefits of new discoveries while minimizing the collateral damage that can accompany them.

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

Bicycles have been woven into my life since I first straddled a hand-me-down with a fan belt drive when I was 3. At age 12 my friend Ricky and I took a 250 mile–plus 2-night adventure on our 3-speed “English” style bikes. We still marvel that our parents let us do it when neither cell phones nor GPS existed.

I have always bike commuted to work, including the years when that involved a perilous navigation into Boston from the suburbs. In our mid-50s my wife and I biked from Washington state back here to Maine with another couple unsupported. We continue to do at least one self-guided cycle tour out of the country each year.

Not surprisingly, I keep a close eye on what’s happening in the bicycle market. For decades the trends have shifted back and forth between sleek road models and beefier off-roaders. There have been boom years here and there for the dealers and manufacturers, but nothing like what the bike industry is experiencing now with the arrival of e-bikes on the market. Driven primarily by electrification, micromobility ridership (which includes conventional bikes and scooters) has grown more than 50-fold over the last 10 years. Projections suggest the market’s value will be $300 billion by 2030.

It doesn’t take an MBA with a major in marketing to understand the broad appeal of electrification. Most adults have ridden a bicycle as children, but several decades of gap years has left many of them with a level of fitness that makes pedaling against the wind or up any incline difficult and unappealing. An e-bike can put even the least fitness conscious back in the saddle and open the options for outdoor recreation they haven’t dreamed of since childhood.

In large part the people flocking to e-bikes are retiree’s who thought they were “over the hill.” They are having so much fun they don’t care if the Lycra-clad “serious” cyclists notice the battery bulge in the frame on their e-bikes. Another group of e-bike adopters are motivated by the “greenness” of a fossil-fuel–free electric powered transportation which, with minimal compromise, can be used as they would a car around town and for longer commutes than they would have considered on a purely pedal-powered bicycle.

Unfortunately, there is a growing group of younger e-bike riders who are motivated and uninhibited by the potential that the power boost of a small electric motor can provide. And here is where the ugliness begins to intrude on what was otherwise a beautiful and expanding landscape. With the increase in e-bike popularity, there has been an understandable increase in injuries in all age groups. However, it is the young who are, not surprisingly, drawn to the speed, and with any vehicle – motorized or conventional – as speed increases so does the frequency and seriousness of accidents.

The term e-bike covers a broad range of vehicles, from those designated class 1, which require pedaling and are limited to 20 miles per hour, to class 3, which may have a throttle and unmodified can hit 28 mph. Class 2 bikes have a throttle that will allow the rider to reach 20 mph without pedaling. Modifying any class of e-bike can substantially increase its speed, but this is more common in classes 2 and 3. As an example, some very fast micromobiles are considered unclassified e-bikes and avoid being labeled motorcycles simply because they have pedals.

One has to give some credit to the e-bike industry for eventually adopting this classification system. But, we must give the rest of us, including parents and public safety officials, a failing grade for doing a poor job of translating these scores into enforceable regulations to protect both riders and pedestrians from serious injury.

On the governmental side only a little more than half of US states have used the three category classification to craft their regulations. Many jurisdictions have failed to differentiate between streets, sidewalks, and trails. Regulations vary from state to state, and many states leave it up to local communities. From my experience chairing our town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I can tell you that even “progressive” communities are struggling to decide who can ride what where. The result has been that people of all ages, but mostly adolescents, are traveling on busy streets and sidewalks at speeds that put themselves and pedestrians at risk.

On the parental side of the problem are families that have either allowed or enabled their children to ride class 2 and 3 e-bikes without proper safety equipment or consideration for the safety of the rest of the community. Currently, this is not much of a problem here in Maine thanks to the weather and the high price of e-bikes. However, I frequently visit an affluent community in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is not uncommon to see middle school children speeding along well in excess of 20 mph.

Unfortunately this is another example, like television and cell phone, in which our society has been unable to keep up with technology by molding the behavior of our children and/or creating enforceable rules that allow us to reap the benefits of new discoveries while minimizing the collateral damage that can accompany them.

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

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We are quickly approaching the typical cold and flu season. But can we call anything typical since 2020? Since 2020, there have been different recommendations for prevention, testing, return to work, and treatment since our world was rocked by the pandemic. Now that we are in the “post-pandemic” era, family physicians and other primary care professionals are the front line for discussions on prevention, evaluation, and treatment of the typical upper-respiratory infections, influenza, and COVID-19.

Let’s start with prevention. We have all heard the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In primary care, we need to focus on prevention. Vaccination is often one of our best tools against the myriad of infections we are hoping to help patients prevent during cold and flu season. Most recently, we have fall vaccinations aimed to prevent COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The number and timing of each of these vaccinations has different recommendations based on a variety of factors including age, pregnancy status, and whether or not the patient is immunocompromised. For the 2024-2025 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended updated vaccines for both influenza and COVID-19.¹

They have also updated the RSV vaccine recommendations to “People 75 or older, or between 60-74 with certain chronic health conditions or living in a nursing home should get one dose of the RSV vaccine to provide an extra layer of protection.”²

In addition to vaccines as prevention, there is also hygiene, staying home when sick and away from others who are sick, following guidelines for where and when to wear a face mask, and the general tools of eating well, and getting sufficient sleep and exercise to help maintain the healthiest immune system.

Despite the best of intentions, there will still be many who experience viral infections in this upcoming season. The CDC is currently recommending persons to stay away from others for at least 24 hours after their symptoms improve and they are fever-free without antipyretics. In addition to isolation while sick, general symptom management is something that we can recommend for all of these illnesses.

There is more to consider, though, as our patients face these illnesses. The first question is how to determine the diagnosis — and if that diagnosis is even necessary. Unfortunately, many of these viral illnesses can look the same. They can all cause fevers, chills, and other upper respiratory symptoms. They are all fairly contagious. All of these viruses can cause serious illness associated with additional complications. It is not truly possible to determine which virus someone has by symptoms alone, our patients can have multiple viruses at the same time and diagnosis of one does not preclude having another.³

Instead, we truly do need a test for diagnosis. In-office testing is available for RSV, influenza, and COVID-19. Additionally, despite not being as freely available as they were during the pandemic, patients are able to do home COVID tests and then call in with their results. At the time of writing this, at-home rapid influenza tests have also been approved by the FDA but are not yet readily available to the public. These tests are important for determining if the patient is eligible for treatment. Both influenza and COVID-19 have antiviral treatments available to help decrease the severity of the illness and potentially the length of illness and time contagious. According to the CDC, both treatments are underutilized.

This could be because of a lack of testing and diagnosis. It may also be because of a lack of familiarity with the available treatments.^4,5

Influenza treatment is recommended as soon as possible for those with suspected or confirmed diagnosis, immediately for anyone hospitalized, anyone with severe, complicated, or progressing illness, and for those at high risk of severe illness including but not limited to those under 2 years old, those over 65, those who are pregnant, and those with many chronic conditions.

Treatment can also be used for those who are not high risk when diagnosed within 48 hours. In the United States, four antivirals are recommended to treat influenza: oseltamivir phosphate, zanamivir, peramivir, and baloxavir marboxil. For COVID-19, treatments are also available for mild or moderate disease in those at risk for severe disease. Both remdesivir and nimatrelvir with ritonavir are treatment options that can be used for COVID-19 infection. Unfortunately, no specific antiviral is available for the other viral illnesses we see often during this season.

In primary care, we have some important roles to play. We need to continue to discuss all methods of prevention. Not only do vaccine recommendations change at least annually, our patients’ situations change and we have to reassess them. Additionally, people often need to hear things more than once before committing — so it never hurts to continue having those conversations. Combining the conversation about vaccines with other prevention measures is also important so that it does not seem like we are only recommending one thing. We should also start talking about treatment options before our patients are sick. We can communicate what is available as long as they let us know they are sick early. We can also be there to help our patients determine when they are at risk for severe illness and when they should consider a higher level of care.

The availability of home testing gives us the opportunity to provide these treatments via telehealth and even potentially in times when these illnesses are everywhere — with standing orders with our clinical teams. Although it is a busy time for us in the clinic, “cold and flu” season is definitely one of those times when our primary care relationship can truly help our patients.
 

References

1. CDC Recommends Updated 2024-2025 COVID-19 and Flu Vaccines for Fall/Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-t0627-vaccine-recommendations.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. CDC Updates RSV Vaccination Recommendation for Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s-0626-vaccination-adults.html. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. Similarities and Differences between Flu and COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed August 8, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

4. Respiratory Virus Guidance. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

5. Provider Toolkit: Preparing Patients for the Fall and Winter Virus Season. https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/hcp/tools-resources/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2024. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many, many years ago there was a Thanksgiving when as I was just beginning to earn a reputation in my wife’s family. There were no place cards on the table and the usual hovering and jockeying seats was well underway. From behind me I heard one of my young nieces pipe up: “I want to sit next to Doctor I-don’t-know.”

After a few words of negotiation we were all settled in our places and ready to enjoy our meal. It took only a few seconds of introspection for me to grasp how I had received that moniker, which some physicians might consider disrespectful.

I was the only physician within several generations of that family and, as such, my in-laws thought it only appropriate to ask me medical questions. They courteously seemed to avoid personal questions about their own health and were particularly careful not to roll up their sleeves or unbutton their shirts to show me a lesion or a recently acquired surgical scar. No, my wife’s family members were curious. They wanted answers to deeper questions, the hard science so to speak. “How does aspirin work?” was a typical and painful example. Maybe pharmacologists today have better answers but 40 years ago I’m not so sure; I certainly didn’t know back then and would reply, “I don’t know.” Probably for the third or fourth time that day.

Usually I genuinely didn’t know the answer. However, sometimes my answer was going to be so different from the beliefs and biases of my inquisitor that, in the interest of expediency, “I don’t know” seemed the most appropriate response.

If you were reading Letters from Maine 25 years ago, that scenario might sound familiar. I have chosen to pull it out of the archives as a jumping-off point for a consideration of the unfortunate example some of us set when the COVID pandemic threw a tsunami of unknowns at us. Too many physician-“experts” were afraid to say, “I don’t know.” Instead, and maybe because, they themselves were afraid that the patients couldn’t handle the truth that none of us in the profession knew the correct answers. When so many initial pronouncements proved incorrect, it was too late to undo the damage that had been done to the community’s trust in the rest of us.

It turns out that my in-laws were not the only folks who thought of me as Doctor I-don’t-know. One of the perks of remaining in the same community after one retires is that encounters with former patients and their parents happen frequently. On more than one occasion a parent has thanked me for admitting my ignorance. Some have even claimed that my candid approach was what they remembered most fondly. And, that quality increased their trust when I finally provided an answer.

There is an art to delivering “I don’t know.” Thirty years ago I would excuse myself and tell the family I was going to my office to pull a book off the shelf or call a previous mentor. Now one only needs to ask Dr. Google. No need to leave the room. If appropriate, the provider can swing the computer screen so that the patient can share in the search for the answer.

That strategy only works when the provider merely needs to update or expand his/her knowledge. However, there are those difficult situations when no one could know the answer given the current parameters of the patient’s situation. More lab work might be needed. It may be too early in the trajectory of the patient’s illness for the illnesses signs and symptoms to declare themselves.

In these situations “I don’t know” must be followed by a “but.” It is what comes after that “but” and how it is delivered that can convert the provider’s admission of ignorance into a demonstration of his or her character. Is he/she a caring person trying to understand the patient’s concerns? Willing to enter into a cooperative relationship as together they search for the cause and hopefully for a cure for the patient’s currently mysterious illness?

I recently read about a physician who is encouraging medical educators to incorporate more discussions of “humility” and its role in patient care into the medical school and postgraduate training curricula. He feels, as do I, that if more physicians learned to say “I don’t know” early in their careers, the quality of care we are delivering as a profession will improve, as will the trust bestowed by our patients.

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

Many, many years ago there was a Thanksgiving when as I was just beginning to earn a reputation in my wife’s family. There were no place cards on the table and the usual hovering and jockeying seats was well underway. From behind me I heard one of my young nieces pipe up: “I want to sit next to Doctor I-don’t-know.”

After a few words of negotiation we were all settled in our places and ready to enjoy our meal. It took only a few seconds of introspection for me to grasp how I had received that moniker, which some physicians might consider disrespectful.

I was the only physician within several generations of that family and, as such, my in-laws thought it only appropriate to ask me medical questions. They courteously seemed to avoid personal questions about their own health and were particularly careful not to roll up their sleeves or unbutton their shirts to show me a lesion or a recently acquired surgical scar. No, my wife’s family members were curious. They wanted answers to deeper questions, the hard science so to speak. “How does aspirin work?” was a typical and painful example. Maybe pharmacologists today have better answers but 40 years ago I’m not so sure; I certainly didn’t know back then and would reply, “I don’t know.” Probably for the third or fourth time that day.

Usually I genuinely didn’t know the answer. However, sometimes my answer was going to be so different from the beliefs and biases of my inquisitor that, in the interest of expediency, “I don’t know” seemed the most appropriate response.

If you were reading Letters from Maine 25 years ago, that scenario might sound familiar. I have chosen to pull it out of the archives as a jumping-off point for a consideration of the unfortunate example some of us set when the COVID pandemic threw a tsunami of unknowns at us. Too many physician-“experts” were afraid to say, “I don’t know.” Instead, and maybe because, they themselves were afraid that the patients couldn’t handle the truth that none of us in the profession knew the correct answers. When so many initial pronouncements proved incorrect, it was too late to undo the damage that had been done to the community’s trust in the rest of us.

It turns out that my in-laws were not the only folks who thought of me as Doctor I-don’t-know. One of the perks of remaining in the same community after one retires is that encounters with former patients and their parents happen frequently. On more than one occasion a parent has thanked me for admitting my ignorance. Some have even claimed that my candid approach was what they remembered most fondly. And, that quality increased their trust when I finally provided an answer.

There is an art to delivering “I don’t know.” Thirty years ago I would excuse myself and tell the family I was going to my office to pull a book off the shelf or call a previous mentor. Now one only needs to ask Dr. Google. No need to leave the room. If appropriate, the provider can swing the computer screen so that the patient can share in the search for the answer.

That strategy only works when the provider merely needs to update or expand his/her knowledge. However, there are those difficult situations when no one could know the answer given the current parameters of the patient’s situation. More lab work might be needed. It may be too early in the trajectory of the patient’s illness for the illnesses signs and symptoms to declare themselves.

In these situations “I don’t know” must be followed by a “but.” It is what comes after that “but” and how it is delivered that can convert the provider’s admission of ignorance into a demonstration of his or her character. Is he/she a caring person trying to understand the patient’s concerns? Willing to enter into a cooperative relationship as together they search for the cause and hopefully for a cure for the patient’s currently mysterious illness?

I recently read about a physician who is encouraging medical educators to incorporate more discussions of “humility” and its role in patient care into the medical school and postgraduate training curricula. He feels, as do I, that if more physicians learned to say “I don’t know” early in their careers, the quality of care we are delivering as a profession will improve, as will the trust bestowed by our patients.

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

Many, many years ago there was a Thanksgiving when as I was just beginning to earn a reputation in my wife’s family. There were no place cards on the table and the usual hovering and jockeying seats was well underway. From behind me I heard one of my young nieces pipe up: “I want to sit next to Doctor I-don’t-know.”

After a few words of negotiation we were all settled in our places and ready to enjoy our meal. It took only a few seconds of introspection for me to grasp how I had received that moniker, which some physicians might consider disrespectful.

I was the only physician within several generations of that family and, as such, my in-laws thought it only appropriate to ask me medical questions. They courteously seemed to avoid personal questions about their own health and were particularly careful not to roll up their sleeves or unbutton their shirts to show me a lesion or a recently acquired surgical scar. No, my wife’s family members were curious. They wanted answers to deeper questions, the hard science so to speak. “How does aspirin work?” was a typical and painful example. Maybe pharmacologists today have better answers but 40 years ago I’m not so sure; I certainly didn’t know back then and would reply, “I don’t know.” Probably for the third or fourth time that day.

Usually I genuinely didn’t know the answer. However, sometimes my answer was going to be so different from the beliefs and biases of my inquisitor that, in the interest of expediency, “I don’t know” seemed the most appropriate response.

If you were reading Letters from Maine 25 years ago, that scenario might sound familiar. I have chosen to pull it out of the archives as a jumping-off point for a consideration of the unfortunate example some of us set when the COVID pandemic threw a tsunami of unknowns at us. Too many physician-“experts” were afraid to say, “I don’t know.” Instead, and maybe because, they themselves were afraid that the patients couldn’t handle the truth that none of us in the profession knew the correct answers. When so many initial pronouncements proved incorrect, it was too late to undo the damage that had been done to the community’s trust in the rest of us.

It turns out that my in-laws were not the only folks who thought of me as Doctor I-don’t-know. One of the perks of remaining in the same community after one retires is that encounters with former patients and their parents happen frequently. On more than one occasion a parent has thanked me for admitting my ignorance. Some have even claimed that my candid approach was what they remembered most fondly. And, that quality increased their trust when I finally provided an answer.

There is an art to delivering “I don’t know.” Thirty years ago I would excuse myself and tell the family I was going to my office to pull a book off the shelf or call a previous mentor. Now one only needs to ask Dr. Google. No need to leave the room. If appropriate, the provider can swing the computer screen so that the patient can share in the search for the answer.

That strategy only works when the provider merely needs to update or expand his/her knowledge. However, there are those difficult situations when no one could know the answer given the current parameters of the patient’s situation. More lab work might be needed. It may be too early in the trajectory of the patient’s illness for the illnesses signs and symptoms to declare themselves.

In these situations “I don’t know” must be followed by a “but.” It is what comes after that “but” and how it is delivered that can convert the provider’s admission of ignorance into a demonstration of his or her character. Is he/she a caring person trying to understand the patient’s concerns? Willing to enter into a cooperative relationship as together they search for the cause and hopefully for a cure for the patient’s currently mysterious illness?

I recently read about a physician who is encouraging medical educators to incorporate more discussions of “humility” and its role in patient care into the medical school and postgraduate training curricula. He feels, as do I, that if more physicians learned to say “I don’t know” early in their careers, the quality of care we are delivering as a profession will improve, as will the trust bestowed by our patients.

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

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

On July 19, what was supposed to be a harmless software upgrade brought down a huge chunk of the health care, banking, flight, and travel systems.

While my dinky little practice wasn’t affected, several of my patients were in other ways. Tests that had to be rescheduled, flights canceled ... inconveniences, but not life altering.

Things are allegedly fixed (at least until next time) but there may be fallout down the road. People who had delayed medical procedures could have a different prognosis depending on what the results showed when they were done. Hopefully this won’t happen.

But it’s a reminder of how vulnerable our whole world is to disruption of the internet, not to mention the power grid and software systems. Paper is time consuming, and takes up a lot of space, but as long as you have a decent pen and enough light to read it you’re fine.

I’m not saying we should go back to paper. It’s more expensive in the long run, takes up shelf and closet space, kills trees, has to be shredded after a time, and turns yellow around the edges. It also makes it a pain to copy and transfer records. With paper I wouldn’t be able to take all my charts with me to refer to when I leave town on a busman’s holiday. The benefits of digital far outstrip paper or we wouldn’t have switched in the first place.

But it’s still kind of scary to realize how much we depend on software to keep things running smoothly. The events of July 19 were unintentional. Someone looking to cause real trouble could do worse — and there are plenty out there who would love to — and we’re putting our faith in companies like CrowdStrike to protect us from them.

But, on the flip side, we’re asking others to do the same. We often use the phrase “trust me, I’m a doctor,” in jest, but the point is there. People come to us because we have knowledge and training they don’t, and they’re hoping we can help them. We spent a lot of time getting to the point where we can hang up a sign that says so. And we, like everyone else, are not infallible.

We’re individuals, not machines. Both are fallible, though in different ways. In CrowdStrike’s case the machines didn’t fail, they just did what the humans told them to do. Which didn’t work.

The bottom line is that even the most well-meaning will make mistakes.

But it’s still pretty scary because, even unintentionally, there will be a next time. And between now and then our world will become even more dependent on these systems. None of us want to go back to the preconnected era, it’s too much a part of our daily lives.

Like the long list of potential side effects on any drug we prescribe, it’s a trade-off that we’ve accepted. And at this point we aren’t going back.

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

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

The field of GI is rapidly evolving, fueled by new scientific discoveries leading to improved understanding of disease mechanisms and more effective treatment approaches for patients with digestive and liver diseases. But there are many challenges confronting the pipeline of early-career investigators essential to future discovery, most notably a constrained funding environment leading to decreased protected time for research during these critical early years.

Foundation awards, such as those funded by the AGA Research Foundation, play a pivotal role in supporting the career development of promising young investigators in basic, translational, clinical, and health services research and ensure that we have a strong pipeline of independent investigators to stimulate ongoing discovery and innovation in our field. This year, the AGA Research Foundation distributed $2.6 million in funding to 76 investigators, including six coveted Research Scholar Awards awarded to early-career investigators. These promising young researchers represent the best and the brightest in our field — I hope you enjoy learning more about them in the pages of this issue and will join me in continuing to support the Foundation and its work under the leadership of Dr. Michael Camilleri.

University of Michigan

Also in our August issue, we bring you continued coverage from DDW and June’s EASL Congress, and report on innovative science published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study investigating the impact of H pylori eradication on esophageal cancer risk. We also highlight several important studies relating to eosinophilic esophagitis, including a recent RCT published in The New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in treatment of PPI-refractory pediatric EoE. Our August Member Spotlight features Dr. Neelendu Dey of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, who shares his perspectives on pursuing a career as a physician-scientist and chronicles his research focused on harnessing the microbiome for cancer prevention.

Finally, our quarterly In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist provides practical advice regarding how best to evaluate patients with chronic bloating symptoms, a frequent presentation in our GI clinics. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.
 

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief