Clinical Endocrinology News

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

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

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait a minute.

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

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

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

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

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

Ambivalence rules!

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

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

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

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

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

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

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

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

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

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

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

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

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait a minute.

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

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

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

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

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

Ambivalence rules!

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

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

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

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

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

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

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

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

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

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

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

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

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait a minute.

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

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

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

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

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

Ambivalence rules!

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

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

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

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

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

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

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

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

Use terminology that patients understand

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

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

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

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

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

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

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

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

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

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

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

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

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

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

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

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

Use terminology that patients understand

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

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

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

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

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

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

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

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

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

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

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

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

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

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

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

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

Use terminology that patients understand

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

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

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

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

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

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

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

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

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

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

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study that quantifies the harm to the liver of eating fast food might motivate people to eat less of it – especially those with obesity or diabetes.

The study finds that getting one-fifth or more of total daily calories from fast food can increase the risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which can lead to cirrhosis and its complications, including liver failure and liver cancer.

Annbozhko/iStock/Getty Images

Although the magnitude of association was modest among the general population, “striking” elevations in steatosis were evident among persons with obesity and diabetes who consumed fast food, in comparison with their counterparts who did not have obesity and diabetes, the researchers reported.

“My hope is that this study encourages people to seek out more nutritious, healthy food options and provides information that clinicians can use to counsel their patients, particularly those with underlying metabolic risk factors, of the importance of avoiding foods that are high in fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugars,” lead investigator Ani Kardashian, MD, hepatologist with the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“At a policy level, public health efforts are needed to improve access to affordable, healthy, and nutritious food options across the U.S. This is especially important as more people have turned to fast foods during the pandemic and as the price of food as risen dramatically over the past year due to food inflation,” Dr. Kardashian added.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More fast food, greater steatosis

The findings are based on data from 3,954 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2017-2018 and who underwent vibration-controlled transient elastography. Of these participants, data regarding 1- or 2-day dietary recall were available.

Steatosis, the primary outcome, was measured via controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). Two validated cutoffs were utilized (CAP ≥ 263 dB/m and CAP ≥ 285 dB/m).

Of those surveyed, 52% consumed any fast food, and 29% derived 20% or more of their daily calories from fast food.

Fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories was significantly associated with greater steatosis after multivariable adjustment, both as a continuous measure (4.6 dB/m higher CAP score) and with respect to the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff (odds ratio [OR], 1.45).

“The negative effects are particularly severe in people who already have diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Kardashian told this news organization.

For example, with diabetes and fast-food intake of 20% or more of daily calories, the ORs of meeting the CAP ≥ 263 dB/m cutoff and the CAP ≥ 285 dB/m cutoff were 2.3 and 2.48, respectively.

The researchers said their findings are particularly “alarming,” given the overall increase in fast-food consumption over the past 50 years in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.
 

Diet coaching

The finding that fast food has more deleterious impact on those with obesity and diabetes “emphasizes that it is not just one insult but multiple factors that contribute to overall health,” said Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

“This is actually great news, because diet is modifiable, vs. your genetics, which you currently can’t change. This doesn’t mean if you’re lean you can eat whatever you want, but if you are overweight, being careful with your diet does have impact, even if it doesn’t lead to substantial weight changes,” said Dr. Reau, who is not affiliated with the study.

For people who have limited options and need to eat fast food, “there are healthy choices at most restaurants; you just need to be smart about reading labels, watching calories, and ordering the healthier options,” Dr. Reau said in an interview.

Fast food and fatty liver go “hand in hand,” Lisa Ganjhu, DO, gastroenterologist and hepatologist at NYU Langone Health in New York, told this news organization.

“I counsel and coach my patients on healthy diet and exercise, and I’ve been pretty successful,” said Dr. Ganjhu, who was not involved with the study.

“If my patient is eating at McDonald’s a lot, I basically walk through the menu with them and help them find something healthy. When patients see the benefits of cutting out fat and reducing carbohydrates, they are more apt to continue,” Dr. Ganjhu said.

The study was funded by the University of Southern California. Dr. Kardashian, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Ganjhu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) introduced early during the menopausal transition may protect against Alzheimer’s dementia in women carrying the APOE4 gene, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of almost 1,200 women showed that use of HRT was associated with higher delayed memory scores and larger entorhinal and hippocampal brain volumes – areas that are affected early by Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology.

HRT was also found to be most effective, as seen by larger hippocampal volume, when introduced during early perimenopause.

“Clinicians are very much aware of the susceptibility of women to cognitive disturbances during menopause,” lead author Rasha Saleh, MD, senior research associate, University of East Anglia (England), said in an interview.

“Identifying the at-risk APOE4 women and early HRT introduction can be of benefit. Confirming our findings in a clinical trial would be the next step forward,” Dr. Saleh said.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
 

Personalized approaches

Dr. Saleh noted that estrogen receptors are localized in various areas of the brain, including cognition-related areas. Estrogen regulates such things as neuroinflammatory status, glucose utilization, and lipid metabolism.

“The decline of estrogen during menopause can lead to disturbance in these functions, which can accelerate AD-related pathology,” she said.

HRT during the menopausal transition and afterward is “being considered as a strategy to mitigate cognitive decline,” the investigators wrote. Early observational studies have suggested that oral estrogen “may be protective against dementia,” but results of clinical trials have been inconsistent, and some have even shown “harmful effects.”

The current researchers were “interested in the personalized approaches in the prevention of AD,” Dr. Saleh said. Preclinical and pilot data from her group have shown that women with APOE4 have “better cognitive test scores with nutritional and hormonal interventions.”

This led Dr. Saleh to hypothesize that HRT would be of more cognitive benefit for those with versus without APOE4, particularly when introduced early during the menopausal transition.

To investigate this hypothesis, the researchers analyzed baseline data from participants in the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) cohort. This project was initiated in 2015 with the aim of developing longitudinal models over the entire course of AD prior to dementia clinical diagnosis.

Participants were recruited from 10 European countries. All were required to be at least 50 years old, to have not been diagnosed with dementia at baseline, and to have no medical or psychiatric illness that could potentially exclude them from further research.

The current study included 1,178 women (mean age, 65.1 years), who were divided by genotype into non-APOE4 and APOE4 groups. HRT treatment for current or previous users included estrogen alone or estrogen plus progestogens via oral or transdermal administration routes, and at different doses.

The four tests used to assess cognition were the Mini-Mental State Examination dot counting to evaluate verbal working memory, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) total score, the Four Mountain Test, and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test.

Brain MRI data were collected. The researchers focused on the medial temporal lobe as the “main brain region regulating cognition and memory processing.” This lobe includes the hippocampus, the parahippocampus, the entorhinal cortex, and the amygdala.
 

‘Critical window’

The researchers found a “trend” toward an APOE-HRT interaction (P-interaction = .097) for the total RBANS score. In particular, it was significant for the RBANS delayed memory index, where scores were consistently higher for women with APOE4 who had received HRT, compared with all other groups (P-interaction = .009).

Within-genotype group comparisons showed that HRT users had a higher RBANS total scale score and delayed memory index (P = .045 and P = .002, respectively), but only among APOE4 carriers. Effect size analyses showed a large effect of HRT use on the Four Mountain Test score and the supermarket trolley virtual reality test score (Cohen’s d = 0.988 and 1.2, respectively).

“This large effect was found only in APOE4 carriers,” the investigators noted.

Similarly, a moderate to large effect of HRT on the left entorhinal volume was observed in APOE4 carriers (Cohen’s d = 0.63).

In members of the APOE4 group who received HRT, the left entorhinal and left and right amygdala volumes were larger, compared with both no-APOE4 and non-HRT users (P-interaction = .002, .003, and .005, respectively). Similar trends were observed for the right entorhinal volume (P = .074).

In addition, among HRT users, the left entorhinal volume was larger (P = .03); the right and left anterior cingulate gyrus volumes were smaller (P = .003 and .062, respectively); and the left superior frontal gyrus volume was larger (P = .009) in comparison with women who did not receive HRT, independently of their APOE genotype.

Early use of HRT among APOE4 carriers was associated with larger right and left hippocampal volume (P = .035 and P = .028, respectively) – an association not found in non-APOE4 carriers. The association was also not significant when participants were not stratified by APOE genotype.

“The key important point here is the timing, or the ‘critical window,’ when HRT can be of most benefit,” Dr. Saleh said. “This is most beneficial when introduced early, before the neuropathology becomes irreversible.”

Study limitations include its cross-sectional design, which precludes the establishment of a causal relationship, and the fact that information regarding the type and dose of estrogen was not available for all participants.

HRT is not without risk, Dr. Saleh noted. She recommended that clinicians “carry out various screening tests to make sure that a woman is eligible for HRT and not at risk of hypercoagulability, for instance.”
 

Risk-benefit ratio

In a comment, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the study “exactly the kind of work that needs to be done.”

Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the current research, is a clinical professor of geriatric medicine, palliative care medicine, and neuroscience at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

He compared the process with that of osteoporosis. “We know that if women are treated [with HRT] at the time of the menopause, you can prevent the rapid bone loss that occurs with rapid estrogen loss. But if you wait 5, 10 years out, once the bone loss has occurred, the HRT doesn’t really have any impact on osteoporosis risk because the horse is already out of the barn,” he said.

Although HRT carries risks, “they can clearly be managed; and if it’s proven that estrogen or hormone replacement around the time of the menopause can be protective [against AD], the risk-benefit ratio of HRT could be in favor of treatment,” Dr. Fillit added.

The study was conducted as part of the Medical Research Council NuBrain Consortium. The investigators and Dr. Fillit reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

People who are overweight or have obesity appear to show a blunted response to vitamin D supplementation compared with normal-weight individuals in a new analysis of a randomized trial.

“There seems to be something different happening with vitamin D metabolism at higher body weights, and this study may help explain diminished outcomes of supplementation for individuals with an elevated body mass index (BMI),” said first author Deirdre K. Tobias, ScD, an associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s division of preventive medicine in Boston. She made the comments in a press statement issued with the study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

The findings are from a post hoc analysis of the large-scale Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which overall, showed no benefits among those randomized to 5 years of vitamin D supplementation (2,000 IU/day) versus placebo in terms of the primary endpoints of cancer or major cardiovascular disease outcomes.

However, prespecified secondary analyses according to body weight showed that those of normal weight (body mass index < 25.0 kg/m²) did have significant benefits from supplementation versus placebo in terms of cancer incidence (24% lower), cancer mortality (42% lower), and autoimmune disease (22% lower), while no corresponding benefits were observed among those who were overweight or had obesity.

The new analysis adds important context to the trial’s overall findings, noted Katherine N. Bachmann, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

“Thanks to its very large sample size and detailed biomarker analyses, the current study is able to provide novel evidence that responses to vitamin D supplementation may be attenuated in individuals with overweight and obesity, and that this may contribute to the differential outcomes by BMI noted in the original VITAL,” she wrote.

“Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose or circulating vitamin D level for individuals with obesity for nonskeletal health-related outcomes,” added Dr. Bachmann, division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
 

New analysis examined vitamin D and biomarkers at baseline and 2 years

To take a closer look at the specific changes in vitamin D serum and biomarker levels between the different body-weight groups, Dr. Tobias and colleagues evaluated data from 16,515 participants in the trial (of the 25,000 originally included in VITAL) and looked at changes in key vitamin D serum levels and biomarkers at baseline and follow-up.

Consistent with common observations of lower vitamin D levels with obesity, participants in the higher BMI categories had incrementally lower mean levels of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) prior to randomization, with levels ranging from 32.3 ng/mL for normal weight individuals to 28.0 ng/mL for those with obesity class II (P < .001 for a linear trend).

Baseline levels of other vitamin D biomarkers were also lower with higher BMI, including total 25-OHD 3, free vitamin D (FVD), and bioavailable vitamin D (BioD).

Among 2,742 participants with repeated blood collections at year 2, significant mean increases were observed overall at the end of the study period in serum 25-OHD levels (11.9 ng/mL) among those randomized to vitamin D supplementation, compared with little change in the placebo group (–0.7 ng/mL).

There were also significant increases, overall, in mean total 25-OHD, 25-OHD3, FVD, and BioD levels at 2 years among those receiving supplementation, with little or no change in the placebo group.

When stratified by BMI level, however, the magnitude of increase was lower among those with higher baseline BMI (all treatment effect interactions P < .001). For instance, the mean increases in total 25-OHD level at 2 years for supplementation versus placebo were 13.5 ng/mL for those with a BMI less than 25.0 versus only 10.0 ng/mL for those with a BMI of at least 35.0.

Importantly, even after controlling for baseline vitamin D status of sufficiency or insufficiency, BMI was still significantly associated with changes seen with supplementation.

“It was surprising that, even in the context of low vitamin D levels, those with higher BMI still had a blunted response to supplementation, suggesting the interaction between supplementation and BMI with health outcomes is not simply due to higher prevalence of deficiency,” Dr. Tobias said in an interview. “It really does seem that, even with insufficient or low levels at baseline, those with higher BMI are not able to catch up to sufficient levels as well as those with normal BMI.”
 

Mechanisms?

Among leading theories as to why higher BMI would be associated with lower serum vitamin D levels and a lower response to supplementation is that because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, the increased adiposity and fat storage capacity with higher BMI results in greater removal of the vitamin from circulation.

“Our results are largely consistent with this hypothesis,” the authors noted.

They added that weight-loss studies, including those involving bariatric surgery, have further shown greater increases in serum 25-OHD or circulating vitamin D levels after weight loss compared with baseline.

Other theories suggest that obesity-induced hepatic dysfunction can contribute to impaired vitamin D metabolism.

Without a clear understanding of the exact mechanisms, the potential for addressing the lower vitamin D levels with, for instance, higher doses of supplementation among those with obesity, also remains unclear, Dr. Tobias noted.

“I think once there’s more clarity on what the mechanism is, then it would make sense to consider what doses could be necessary to achieve the internal levels desired,” she said.

The VITAL study received funding from a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and other sources.

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

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

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

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].