Clinical Endocrinology News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

High levels of triglyceride molecules in LDL cholesterol are “robustly” linked with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, according to a study that used two different methods in two separate cohorts from a large European population study plus a meta-analysis to verify the results.

“There have been some studies in the past, as you can see from our meta-analysis, that found a similar association, but I don’t think most people are convinced that there is really this relationship, and certainly I was not convinced,” lead investigator Børge G. Nordestgaard, MD, DMSc, professor at the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study enrolled 68,290 patients from the Copenhagen General Population study; 38,081 were assigned to direct automated assay to measure their LDL triglycerides and 30,208 had nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Median follow-up was 3 and 9.2 years for the respective cohorts.

LDL triglycerides carry higher ASCVD risk

In the automated assay group, each 0.1-mmol/L (9 mg/dL)–higher direct LDL triglycerides carried a 22%-38% higher risk for the following outcomes: ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.35); ischemic heart disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39); myocardial infarction (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48); ischemic stroke (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38); and peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21-1.58).

In the group that had NMR spectroscopy to measure LDL triglycerides, risks were similar, ranging from HRs of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.23) for ischemic stroke to 1.41 (95% CI, 1.31-1.52) for myocardial infarction. The investigators noted that apolipoprotein B levels didn’t entirely explain these results.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies that evaluated varying cardiovascular disease outcomes. It compared random-effects risk ratios for the highest quartile vs. the lowest quartile of LDL triglycerides. They were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.35-1.66) for ASCVD (four studies, 71,526 individuals, 8,576 events); 1.62 (95% CI, 1.37-1.93) for ischemic heart disease (six studies, 107,538 individuals, 9,734 events); 1.30 (95% CI, 1.13-1.49) for ischemic stroke (four studies, 78,026 individuals, 4,273 events); and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.29-1.81) for peripheral artery disease (four studies, 107,511 individuals, 1,848 events). The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results confirm hypothesis the study sought to disprove

The purpose of the study was to actually disprove the hypothesis that the study ended up confirming, Dr. Nordestgaard said. “When we started this study, my idea was that we wanted to show that LDL triglyceride was not related to these diseases, because that didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “I’m so used to the thinking that the cholesterol content of these particles drive atherosclerosis and therefore atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

He noted that LDL can carry both cholesterol and triglycerides, and that larger remnant lipoproteins can carry a substantial amount of triglycerides and a lesser amount of cholesterol. “Those remnants actually transfer into LDL, so they somewhat bring the triglycerides molecules into LDL,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

The direct automated assay test used in the study to measure LDL triglycerides is not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, according to Denka, the manufacturer of the test.

The use of the Copenhagen General Population Study cohorts is a strength of the study because it has 100% follow-up with all patients, Dr. Nordestgaard said. The meta-analysis is another strength. “So we can show real clearly, not only in our two prospective studies, but also added to the former ones in the literature: All say exactly the same thing: High LDL triglycerides carry a high risk for ASCVD and its components.”

A limitation Dr. Nordestgaard acknowledged: The study doesn’t explain the causal relationship between high LDL triglycerides and ASCVD. But the study provides “very sound evidence that there’s a relationship,” he added. The study population was also a White, Danish population that lacked ethnic and racial diversity.

Next step is finding a treatment

The Danish study essentially confirms what the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community Study (ARIC) found with regard to LDL triglycerides, said Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and an ARIC investigator. 

This study is the “first step” to coming up with a test to identify risk, he said. “These data are pretty convincing, when you throw in the data in this study plus all the meta-analyses data, that LDL triglycerides, when they’re elevated, identify individuals at increased risk for an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event.”

The next step, he said, is coming up with a treatment for people with elevated HDL triglyceride. “That’s where we don’t have as much data because this test hasn’t been used. I’m pretty sure that statins are going to work fine for these people, because they lower LDL cholesterol and they also lower triglycerides, and some of the data have shown already that they reduce the LDL remnant,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

The Danish study provides enough of a basis for pursuing future studies to better understand the effect of statins on LDL triglyceride levels, Dr. Ballantyne added.

The study received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation, along with institutional support. Dr. Nordestgaard has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne disclosed receiving research support from Denka.

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

Primary care providers should treat obesity in children and adolescents aggressively including with medication and weight-loss surgery rather than rely on “watchful waiting” and hope the problem solves itself. That’s the upshot of new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The authors of the guidelines also encourage primary care doctors to collaborate with other medical professionals to treat the comorbidities often linked to obesity, rather than take on the entire challenge themselves.

“It’s impossible to treat obesity within the four walls of the clinic. That’s one thing I have learned,” Ihuoma Eneli, MD, associate director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight, told this news organization. For example, a primary care doctor could partner with a gastroenterologist when treating a child who has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, added Dr. Eneli, a professor of pediatrics at the Ohio State University, Columbus, who helped write the recommendations.

The new document updates 2007 recommendations from AAP about treating children and adolescents who are overweight or obese. The earlier statement focused on behavioral modification and healthy eating behaviors and paid less attention to weight-lowering medications or bariatric surgery for young people. That document did not offer specific advice to health care providers about how to address childhood overweight or obesity.

The 2023 guidelines recommend that pediatricians offer anyone aged 12 years and older with obesity – defined as a body mass index (BMI) at the 95th percentile or higher – the option of receiving weight-loss medications in addition to ongoing support for lifestyle modifications, such as exercising more and eating healthier foods.

The same approach holds for bariatric surgery once children reach age 13, and AAP stressed that no physician should ever stigmatize children or imply that they are to blame for their weight.

AAP did not receive any industry funding to develop the guidelines.

As children reach the threshold BMI levels, physicians should conduct complete physicals and order blood tests to get a fuller picture of the patients’ health.

These are the first guidelines from AAP aimed at giving pediatricians and other primary care providers concrete guidance for managing overweight and obesity in younger patients.

“Obesity is a complex, chronic disease, and that’s a frame shift here,” said Sandra S. Hassink, MD, leader of the guideline group and director of the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.

Dr. Hassink compared obesity to asthma, another chronic disease that merits prompt attention and ongoing treatment. A physician would never let a child with asthma go untreated until their breathing problems are so severe that they turn blue, Dr. Hassink said; similarly, physicians should treat obesity in young people promptly and over time.

While some aspects of treating overweight and obesity are the same for children and adults, Dr. Hassink noted distinct differences. “Every child is embedded in a family and extended support structure,” Dr. Hassink said, which means that any obesity management technique needs the buy-in and support of the child’s family too.

AAP’s new advice reflects current understanding that excess weight or obesity in children is a result of biological and social factors, such as living in a food desert or experiencing the effects of structural racism.

The guidelines synthesize the results of hundreds of studies about the best way to treat excess weight in young people. If multiple studies were of high quality and all reached similar conclusions, they received an “A.” Less robust but still informative studies rated a “B.” In aggregate, the guideline about weight-lowering medication is based on “B” evidence that could shift with further research.

The authors recommend that clinicians calculate a child’s BMI beginning at age 2 years, with particular attention to those at the 85th percentile or higher for their age and sex (which would be defined as overweight), at the 95th percentile or higher (obesity), or at the 120th percentile and higher (severe obesity). Clinicians also should monitor blood pressure and cholesterol in their patients with overweight or obesity, particularly once they reach age 10.

Starting at age 6, providers should interview patients and their families about what would motivate them to lose weight, then tailor interventions to those factors rather than just make a blanket declaration that weight loss is necessary. This step should be coupled with intensive support – ideally, at least 26 hours of face-to-face support over the course of a year, although more is better – about effective exercise and dietary habits that result in weight loss.

The intensive support model should remain in place throughout childhood and adolescence and should be coupled with referrals for weight-loss medications or bariatric surgeries as needed once children reach age 12 or 13. Those age cutoffs are based on current evidence as to when weight-loss medications or surgery becomes effective, Dr. Hassink said, and could be shifted to lower ages if that’s what new evidence shows.

“Intensive health behavioral and lifestyle treatment is the base of all other treatment extensions,” Dr. Eneli said.

Young patients who needed weight-lowering medication used to have fewer options, according to Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, the Minnesota American Legion and Auxiliary Chair in Children’s Health at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

.No longer.

Dr. Kelly was not involved in drafting the guidelines but was the lead investigator for trials of liraglutide (Saxenda), which in 2020 received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for treating obesity in adolescents. In 2022, the agency approved phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) for long-term weight management for patients aged 12 years and older, along with a once-weekly injection of semaglutide (Wegovy) patients in this age group. There are no weight-lowering medications for children younger than 12, Dr. Kelly said.

“Obesity is not a lifestyle problem. A lot of it is driven by the underlying biology,” Dr. Kelly said. “Really, what these medicines do is make it easier for people to make the right lifestyle choices by pushing back against the biology.”

For example, a drug can make people feel full for longer or disrupt chemical pathways that result in craving certain foods. Dr. Kelly emphasized that these drugs do not give license for people to eat as much as they want.

As for bariatric surgery, the new guidelines adhere closely to those in a 2019 AAP statement that bariatric surgery is safe and effective in pediatric settings. This is gratifying to Kirk W. Reichard, MD, MBA, a lead author of the 2019 article and director of the bariatric surgery program at Nemours Children’s Health.

Even if the information isn’t new as of 2023, Dr. Reichard said, AAP’s imprimatur could cause some eligible families to consider bariatric surgery when they may not have done so before.

Dr. Eneli, Dr. Hassink, and Dr. Reichard reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Kelly has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus.

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

A new consensus statement from the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA) offers recommendations for endocrinologists on the management of thyroid eye disease (TED), addressing key questions, including about important novel treatments, that transcend international borders.

The consensus statement is important as new therapies transform the treatment of TED that, notably, have even played a key role in simplifying the name of the disease, which has had numerous other, often confusing names over the years, ranging from thyrotropic exophthalmos to Graves ophthalmopathy, Terry F. Davies, MD, of the thyroid research unit, department of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an editorial published along with the statement in Thyroid.

“The emergence of novel therapies has changed the entire discussion concerning TED and not just its name,” he wrote. “These are early and exciting days in the treatment of TED, which is likely to be a much more manageable disease in the years to come.”

However, Dr. Davies stressed to this news organization that there are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when it comes to newer therapies. For example, teprotumumab can cost up to $300,000 for one course of treatment for one patient, the consensus statement notes.
 

When to consult an ophthalmologist

Graves disease is the most common cause of hyperthyroidism and affects > 1% of the U.S. population. TED is the most common complication of Graves disease that occurs outside of the thyroid gland. TED causes a variety of eye-related signs and symptoms, which can be disfiguring and negatively affect quality of life, and in rare cases, threaten vision.

Key issues covered in the consensus statement include timely diagnosis of TED, assessment of disease activity and severity, initial care and referral for specialty care, and treatment recommendations for moderate to severe TED.

In terms of disease assessment, for instance, the statement authors noted the important distinction in TED “between the two interdependent components of inflammatory activity, manifested by pain, redness, and edema, and disease severity, including proptosis, lid malposition, exposure keratopathy, impaired ocular motility, and optic neuropathy.”

“The presence of multiple features of inflammation usually signifies active disease,” they explained.

For initial care, input from endocrinologists as well as ophthalmologists with experience in TED management is urged, and “an ophthalmologist should be consulted when the diagnosis of TED is uncertain, in cases of moderate to severe TED, and when surgical intervention needs to be considered.”

Furthermore, “urgent referral is required when sight-threatening TED is suspected or confirmed,” the authors noted.
 

Debate over some treatment recommendations

In terms of therapy, for initial care, “a single course of selenium selenite 100 mcg twice daily for 6 months may be considered for patients with mild, active TED, particularly in regions of selenium insufficiency,” the consensus statement recommends.

Intravenous glucocorticoid (IVGC) therapy is meanwhile recommended as a preferred treatment for active moderate to severe TED specifically when disease activity is the prominent feature in the absence of significant proptosis or diplopia.

For patients with active moderate to severe TED who are glucocorticoid-resistant, the authors noted that rituximab and tocilizumab may be considered and that teprotumumab has not been evaluated in this setting.

Teprotumumab, if available, is a preferred therapy for patients with active moderate to severe TED who have significant proptosis.

There is, however, some debate over the issue, editorial author Dr. Davies told this news organization.

“It is still argued over how bad the eyes need to be before recommending this new treatment,” he said. “I think the answer is in the proptosis – the amount of bulging present rather than just inflammation,” Dr. Davies said.

“There is also a real clinical problem in that we have no specific biomarker for the disease, however, high levels of TSH receptor antibody are often a good indicator of eye disease.”

The authors cautioned, however, that clinical trials with medical therapies have been limited by inclusion criteria and other factors, and biologics have meanwhile increased the cost of treatment “many-fold” compared with conventional agents.

Therefore, “clinicians should balance the demonstrated efficacy of recently introduced therapies [such as teprotumumab] against the absence of experience on sustained long-term efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness,” they noted.

Importantly, “one course consisting of eight infusions of teprotumumab has a retail cost of approximately $300,000, depending on patient weight, [which is] approximately 2,000 times that of IVGC,” they noted.

“The process involved in selecting therapy with these drugs and other drugs includes a consideration of both short- and long-term efficacy, adverse effects that are both known and unknown, the likelihood of disease aggravation or relapse after a previously beneficial response, and the relative cost and availability,” said Henry B. Burch, MD, who is at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and is on the consensus statement task force.

To help with those decisions, the consensus statement provides comprehensive tables that compare drug efficacy for key outcomes including inflammation, proptosis, diplopia, and quality of life, and importantly, comparisons also of drug costs and potential adverse effects for each of the current TED therapies.
 

Consensus statement not a guideline

The groups noted that the consensus statement is not meant to be a clinical practice guideline and was not written to “establish a standard of care, replace sound clinical judgment, or capture all nuances likely to be present in any particular patient,” and “specific outcomes are not guaranteed.”

What the statement is intended for is to “provide a concise and timely appraisal of a rapidly changing therapeutic arena” for practicing endocrinologists, they explained.

Overall, the authors recommend an individualized management approach, based on factors ranging from disease severity, duration, its impact on daily living, patient age, comorbidities, and importantly, the costs of therapies.

Ultimately, patient satisfaction is essential in TED management, Dr. Burch added.

“Consideration of the impact of TED on patient’s satisfaction with their appearance and visual functioning is a key component in management decisions concerning TED.”A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA) offers recommendations for endocrinologists on the management of thyroid eye disease (TED), addressing key questions, including about important novel treatments, that transcend international borders.

The consensus statement is important as new therapies transform the treatment of TED that, notably, have even played a key role in simplifying the name of the disease, which has had numerous other, often confusing names over the years, ranging from thyrotropic exophthalmos to Graves ophthalmopathy, Terry F. Davies, MD, of the thyroid research unit, department of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an editorial published along with the statement in Thyroid.

“The emergence of novel therapies has changed the entire discussion concerning TED and not just its name,” he wrote. “These are early and exciting days in the treatment of TED, which is likely to be a much more manageable disease in the years to come.”

However, Dr. Davies stressed to this news organization that there are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when it comes to newer therapies. For example, teprotumumab can cost up to $300,000 for one course of treatment for one patient, the consensus statement notes.
 

When to consult an ophthalmologist

Graves disease is the most common cause of hyperthyroidism and affects > 1% of the U.S. population. TED is the most common complication of Graves disease that occurs outside of the thyroid gland. TED causes a variety of eye-related signs and symptoms, which can be disfiguring and negatively affect quality of life, and in rare cases, threaten vision.

Key issues covered in the consensus statement include timely diagnosis of TED, assessment of disease activity and severity, initial care and referral for specialty care, and treatment recommendations for moderate to severe TED.

In terms of disease assessment, for instance, the statement authors noted the important distinction in TED “between the two interdependent components of inflammatory activity, manifested by pain, redness, and edema, and disease severity, including proptosis, lid malposition, exposure keratopathy, impaired ocular motility, and optic neuropathy.”

“The presence of multiple features of inflammation usually signifies active disease,” they explained.

For initial care, input from endocrinologists as well as ophthalmologists with experience in TED management is urged, and “an ophthalmologist should be consulted when the diagnosis of TED is uncertain, in cases of moderate to severe TED, and when surgical intervention needs to be considered.”

Furthermore, “urgent referral is required when sight-threatening TED is suspected or confirmed,” the authors noted.
 

Debate over some treatment recommendations

In terms of therapy, for initial care, “a single course of selenium selenite 100 mcg twice daily for 6 months may be considered for patients with mild, active TED, particularly in regions of selenium insufficiency,” the consensus statement recommends.

Intravenous glucocorticoid (IVGC) therapy is meanwhile recommended as a preferred treatment for active moderate to severe TED specifically when disease activity is the prominent feature in the absence of significant proptosis or diplopia.

For patients with active moderate to severe TED who are glucocorticoid-resistant, the authors noted that rituximab and tocilizumab may be considered and that teprotumumab has not been evaluated in this setting.

Teprotumumab, if available, is a preferred therapy for patients with active moderate to severe TED who have significant proptosis.

There is, however, some debate over the issue, editorial author Dr. Davies told this news organization.

“It is still argued over how bad the eyes need to be before recommending this new treatment,” he said. “I think the answer is in the proptosis – the amount of bulging present rather than just inflammation,” Dr. Davies said.

“There is also a real clinical problem in that we have no specific biomarker for the disease, however, high levels of TSH receptor antibody are often a good indicator of eye disease.”

The authors cautioned, however, that clinical trials with medical therapies have been limited by inclusion criteria and other factors, and biologics have meanwhile increased the cost of treatment “many-fold” compared with conventional agents.

Therefore, “clinicians should balance the demonstrated efficacy of recently introduced therapies [such as teprotumumab] against the absence of experience on sustained long-term efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness,” they noted.

Importantly, “one course consisting of eight infusions of teprotumumab has a retail cost of approximately $300,000, depending on patient weight, [which is] approximately 2,000 times that of IVGC,” they noted.

“The process involved in selecting therapy with these drugs and other drugs includes a consideration of both short- and long-term efficacy, adverse effects that are both known and unknown, the likelihood of disease aggravation or relapse after a previously beneficial response, and the relative cost and availability,” said Henry B. Burch, MD, who is at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and is on the consensus statement task force.

To help with those decisions, the consensus statement provides comprehensive tables that compare drug efficacy for key outcomes including inflammation, proptosis, diplopia, and quality of life, and importantly, comparisons also of drug costs and potential adverse effects for each of the current TED therapies.
 

Consensus statement not a guideline

The groups noted that the consensus statement is not meant to be a clinical practice guideline and was not written to “establish a standard of care, replace sound clinical judgment, or capture all nuances likely to be present in any particular patient,” and “specific outcomes are not guaranteed.”

What the statement is intended for is to “provide a concise and timely appraisal of a rapidly changing therapeutic arena” for practicing endocrinologists, they explained.

Overall, the authors recommend an individualized management approach, based on factors ranging from disease severity, duration, its impact on daily living, patient age, comorbidities, and importantly, the costs of therapies.

Ultimately, patient satisfaction is essential in TED management, Dr. Burch added.

“Consideration of the impact of TED on patient’s satisfaction with their appearance and visual functioning is a key component in management decisions concerning TED.”A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Thyroid Association (ATA) and European Thyroid Association (ETA) offers recommendations for endocrinologists on the management of thyroid eye disease (TED), addressing key questions, including about important novel treatments, that transcend international borders.

The consensus statement is important as new therapies transform the treatment of TED that, notably, have even played a key role in simplifying the name of the disease, which has had numerous other, often confusing names over the years, ranging from thyrotropic exophthalmos to Graves ophthalmopathy, Terry F. Davies, MD, of the thyroid research unit, department of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an editorial published along with the statement in Thyroid.

“The emergence of novel therapies has changed the entire discussion concerning TED and not just its name,” he wrote. “These are early and exciting days in the treatment of TED, which is likely to be a much more manageable disease in the years to come.”

However, Dr. Davies stressed to this news organization that there are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when it comes to newer therapies. For example, teprotumumab can cost up to $300,000 for one course of treatment for one patient, the consensus statement notes.
 

When to consult an ophthalmologist

Graves disease is the most common cause of hyperthyroidism and affects > 1% of the U.S. population. TED is the most common complication of Graves disease that occurs outside of the thyroid gland. TED causes a variety of eye-related signs and symptoms, which can be disfiguring and negatively affect quality of life, and in rare cases, threaten vision.

Key issues covered in the consensus statement include timely diagnosis of TED, assessment of disease activity and severity, initial care and referral for specialty care, and treatment recommendations for moderate to severe TED.

In terms of disease assessment, for instance, the statement authors noted the important distinction in TED “between the two interdependent components of inflammatory activity, manifested by pain, redness, and edema, and disease severity, including proptosis, lid malposition, exposure keratopathy, impaired ocular motility, and optic neuropathy.”

“The presence of multiple features of inflammation usually signifies active disease,” they explained.

For initial care, input from endocrinologists as well as ophthalmologists with experience in TED management is urged, and “an ophthalmologist should be consulted when the diagnosis of TED is uncertain, in cases of moderate to severe TED, and when surgical intervention needs to be considered.”

Furthermore, “urgent referral is required when sight-threatening TED is suspected or confirmed,” the authors noted.
 

Debate over some treatment recommendations

In terms of therapy, for initial care, “a single course of selenium selenite 100 mcg twice daily for 6 months may be considered for patients with mild, active TED, particularly in regions of selenium insufficiency,” the consensus statement recommends.

Intravenous glucocorticoid (IVGC) therapy is meanwhile recommended as a preferred treatment for active moderate to severe TED specifically when disease activity is the prominent feature in the absence of significant proptosis or diplopia.

For patients with active moderate to severe TED who are glucocorticoid-resistant, the authors noted that rituximab and tocilizumab may be considered and that teprotumumab has not been evaluated in this setting.

Teprotumumab, if available, is a preferred therapy for patients with active moderate to severe TED who have significant proptosis.

There is, however, some debate over the issue, editorial author Dr. Davies told this news organization.

“It is still argued over how bad the eyes need to be before recommending this new treatment,” he said. “I think the answer is in the proptosis – the amount of bulging present rather than just inflammation,” Dr. Davies said.

“There is also a real clinical problem in that we have no specific biomarker for the disease, however, high levels of TSH receptor antibody are often a good indicator of eye disease.”

The authors cautioned, however, that clinical trials with medical therapies have been limited by inclusion criteria and other factors, and biologics have meanwhile increased the cost of treatment “many-fold” compared with conventional agents.

Therefore, “clinicians should balance the demonstrated efficacy of recently introduced therapies [such as teprotumumab] against the absence of experience on sustained long-term efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness,” they noted.

Importantly, “one course consisting of eight infusions of teprotumumab has a retail cost of approximately $300,000, depending on patient weight, [which is] approximately 2,000 times that of IVGC,” they noted.

“The process involved in selecting therapy with these drugs and other drugs includes a consideration of both short- and long-term efficacy, adverse effects that are both known and unknown, the likelihood of disease aggravation or relapse after a previously beneficial response, and the relative cost and availability,” said Henry B. Burch, MD, who is at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and is on the consensus statement task force.

To help with those decisions, the consensus statement provides comprehensive tables that compare drug efficacy for key outcomes including inflammation, proptosis, diplopia, and quality of life, and importantly, comparisons also of drug costs and potential adverse effects for each of the current TED therapies.
 

Consensus statement not a guideline

The groups noted that the consensus statement is not meant to be a clinical practice guideline and was not written to “establish a standard of care, replace sound clinical judgment, or capture all nuances likely to be present in any particular patient,” and “specific outcomes are not guaranteed.”

What the statement is intended for is to “provide a concise and timely appraisal of a rapidly changing therapeutic arena” for practicing endocrinologists, they explained.

Overall, the authors recommend an individualized management approach, based on factors ranging from disease severity, duration, its impact on daily living, patient age, comorbidities, and importantly, the costs of therapies.

Ultimately, patient satisfaction is essential in TED management, Dr. Burch added.

“Consideration of the impact of TED on patient’s satisfaction with their appearance and visual functioning is a key component in management decisions concerning TED.”A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Readjudication of mortality data from the FOURIER trial suggests a higher risk for cardiovascular death with evolocumab (Repatha) among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease than originally reported for the first-in-class PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

The Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) investigators launched this review in 2018, citing “significant inconsistencies and misreporting” between information in death narratives in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR) and the 2017 New England Journal of Medicine publication of the primary trial results.

“After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm,” the researchers conclude in the new report published online in BMJ Open. “At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our adjudication.

“Our findings indicate that complete restoration of all clinical outcomes from the FOURIER trial is required,” they wrote. “Meanwhile, clinicians should be skeptical about benefits vs harms of prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Asked to comment on the reanalysis, FOURIER lead investigator Marc Sabatine, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Lewis Dexter distinguished chair in cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said: “It’s hard to call this science. I think it lacks all scientific rigor and is fundamentally flawed and, because their process was flawed, it has led them to erroneous conclusions.”

Reached for comment, Sanjay Kaul, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who was not involved with either study, said: “If I were to describe this in one sentence, I would say much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot.”
 

Evaluating hard outcomes

The Food and Drug Administration approved evolocumab in 2015 for lowering LDL cholesterol levels, but without results from any trial evaluating hard outcomes.

As previously reported in 2017, FOURIER showed that adding evolocumab to high-intensity statins slashed LDL cholesterol by 59% and was associated with a 15% reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular events endpoint, compared with placebo, but numerically more all-cause and CV mortality.

The NEJM data analysis reported the risk for cardiovascular mortality was 5% (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.25), whereas the new review found a still nonsignificant 20% relative risk (R95% CI, 0.95-1.51).

Cardiac deaths were also numerically higher in the evolocumab group (113 vs. 88), corresponding to a 28% higher relative risk (95% CI, 0.97-1.69). Vascular deaths were similar at 37 in both groups (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.63-1.58).

For 360 of the 870 deaths, the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differs from that identified by the local clinical investigators in the CSR death narrative, the authors said.

The RIAT investigators found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs. 25 in NEJM) and 3 fewer deaths in the placebo group (27 vs. 30). In addition, their review indicated that deaths as a result of cardiac failure in the evolocumab group were almost double those in the placebo group, at 31 versus 16, respectively.
 

An ‘obvious disconnect’

Thomas L. Perry, MD, a coauthor of the BMJ Open paper and a general internist in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology, and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview that the team repeatedly sought information from the FOURIER investigators but never received a response.

They petitioned and received the FOURIER CSR from the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada and made a similar request with the FDA but were told in October 2019 it would take up to 7 years to release the information. Case report forms were also requested but not received from all three agencies.

Dr. Perry noted that no autopsies were performed in the trial, a claim Dr. Sabatine rejected, and that their review of the death narratives in the CSR found 91 deaths classified by the local investigator as “undetermined” but subsequently adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee as “sudden cardiac” deaths without any documented evidence to support the change.

At his request, Dr. Perry said they included two case examples (figures 1 and 2) in the BMJ Open paper of the “obvious disconnect” in death endpoints. Both of these were identified by the local investigator as a myocardial infarction but later “misreported” according to Dr. Perry, as a sudden cardiac death and noncardiovascular death (trauma), respectively.

“What’s so important about this is not only that it throws into doubt the reliability of what the people at Harvard and elsewhere reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, but also raises a question about any other large study like this where you rely on supposedly ethical local investigators to run the trial well and to report accurately what happens to people,” Dr. Perry said in an interview.

Although he never prescribed evolocumab after the initial results were published, Dr. Perry said he’s even less convinced of a benefit now. “Basically, I don’t believe that they are telling us the facts. I have no reason to say there’s an element of deliberately misleading us. I think it’s sloppiness, incompetence, laziness.”

Dr. Perry also favors readjudication of the mortality data in the ODYSSEY trial, which showed an all-cause mortality benefit with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent).
 

The ‘full picture’

Dr. Sabatine explained that when a patient had a cardiovascular event, including a death, it triggered the collection of a full dossier containing all available source documents, such as discharge summaries, laboratory and imaging data, and autopsy reports, that were independently reviewed by two board certified physicians blinded to treatment. To suggest, as the RIAT investigators have, that no autopsies were performed is “obviously ridiculous and wrong.”

In contrast, he said the new analysis was post hoc, involved unblinded individuals, and relied on serious adverse event narratives, which include a small text box that must be filled out with the site’s initial impression of the case and sent within 24 hours of the event.

Further, when the FOURIER investigators pulled the dossiers for the two more egregious examples cited in the paper, they found that the first patient died in his sleep at home. “The investigator then just said, ‘oh, I assume it’s an MI,’ but there’s no biochemical data, there’s no ECGs, there’s nothing to make the diagnosis of MI. So that’s why that is a sudden cardiac death per the FDA definition,” Dr. Sabatine said.

When the FOURIER investigators reviewed the full dossier for the second case example, they found the patient had slipped in his kitchen at home, sustained a serious head trauma, was brought into the emergency department, and died.

“That’s why we rely on the source documents. That gives the full picture,” he said. The FDA also reviewed the death narratives.

“They comment, ironically, that they were surprised at the inconsistencies between the investigator-reported causes of death and the central events committee-adjudicated ones, making it sound like something nefarious has happened. But that’s the whole point of adjudication, right? That you have a central events committee that reviews and then classifies based on all the data,” Dr. Sabatine said.

Dr. Sabatine said he sees no reason to reevaluate the ODYSSEY mortality data and that the RIAT analysis should not change the overall interpretation of FOURIER.

“I think this is in fact a disservice to the medical community because it’s not real science,” he said. “It’s just sensationalism and sends the wrong message. But I completely stand by the results that we published, as the FDA has.”

Dr. Kaul also thought the new analysis doesn’t materially change the overall benefit–risk balance. He observed that there isn’t a major difference between the reanalysis and the original evaluation. Total mortality was similar and, for cardiovascular deaths, the original NEJM paper lists 251 for evolocumab versus 240 for placebo and the reanalysis lists 150 versus 125, respectively.

Undetermined deaths were 144 for evolocumab and 164 for placebo in the reanalysis. “The conservative approach is to count them as presumed cardiovascular deaths,” Dr. Kaul said. “So, if you do the math and add those undetermined as cardiovascular deaths, we get a total of 294 (150 + 144) versus 289 (125 + 164). That’s five excess deaths with evolocumab.”
 

Open access

Although the RIAT group has called for the public release of the FOURIER data, commercial and legal issues will complicate that process, Steven Grover, MD, professor of medicine and director of the comprehensive health improvement program at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. Amgen is back in court over patent protection, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts in a protracted battle, Reuters reported.

“One thing that’s for sure after they’ve raised questions about the results of this study [is that] somebody needs to take a good hard look at the adjudicated results,” said Dr. Grover, who coauthored several iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society dyslipidemia guidelines, including the latest in 2021.

“I think the thing that got so many of us back in 2017 when the study was first published is the mortality data stuck out like a sore thumb,” he said in an interview. “It didn’t have to be statistically significant, but it did need to move in the same direction as the nonfatal coronary events. That’s what we’ve seen happen time and again and, in this case, it was going in the opposite direction.”

Dr. Sabatine said he doesn’t know whether the data will be released but that the FOURIER trialists plan to submit a rebuttal to BMJ Open to the RIAT analysis, which has caused a stir on CardioTwitter. “Now that people live with tweets of information, it necessitates then dispelling the misinformation that comes out. So yes, we will draft a rebuttal pointing out all the flaws in this analysis.”

Dr. Kaul commented that the FDA’s response not to provide the data was “rather curious” and that Dr. Sabatine and colleagues had the opportunity to address the RIAT group’s concerns, but the paper notes they did not even bother to respond. “You can’t be holier than thou in medicine. You have to treat every question with respect and humility and can’t be dismissive. ... He could have nipped the evil in the bud, so to speak.”

The study was funded by a grant from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The authors, Dr. Kaul, and Dr. Grover reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Medicare beneficiaries will pay no more than $35 a month for insulin in 2023, while ongoing work will be needed to ensure that everyone in the United States with diabetes who needs insulin can afford it.

As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.

On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).  

The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.  

However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.

Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.

“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.

JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.

“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.

At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.

“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.

Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.

“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”

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

Starting colorectal cancer screening earlier than age 50 appears to be cost-effective for both men and women across all body mass index (BMI) measures, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, colonoscopy is cost-effective at age 45 for all BMI strata and at age 40 in obese men. In addition, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is highly cost-effective at ages 40 or 45 for all BMI values, wrote Aaron Yeoh, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Increased body fatness, defined as a high BMI, has increased sharply in recent decades and has been associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Given the rising incidence of CRC in younger people, the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now endorse screening at age 45. In previous analyses, Dr. Yeoh and colleagues suggested that the policy is likely to be cost-effective, but they didn’t explore the potential differences by BMI.

“Our results suggest that 45 years of age is a reasonable screening initiation age for women and men with BMI ranging from normal through all classes of obesity,” the authors wrote. “Before changing screening policy, supportive data from clinical studies would be needed. Our approach can be applied to future efforts aiming to risk-stratify CRC screening based on multiple clinical factors or biomarkers.”

The research team examined the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening tailored to BMI starting as early as age 40 and ending at age 75 in 10 separate cohorts of men and women of normal weight (18.5 to <25 kg/m²), overweight (25 to <30 kg/m²), and three strata of obesity – obese I (30 to <35 kg/m²), obese II (35 to <40 kg/m²), and obese III (>40 kg/m²).

For each cohort, the researchers estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by initiating screening at age 40 versus age 45 versus age 50, or by shortening colonoscopy intervals. They modeled screening colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual FIT, offered from ages 40, 45, or 50 through age 75 with 100% adherence, with postpolypectomy surveillance through age 80.

For model inputs, the research team favored high-quality data from meta-analyses or large prospective trials. Screening, treatment, and complication costs were set at 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rates for ages 65 and older and modified to reflect commercial costs at ages 65 and younger. The authors assumed use of moderate sedation, and sensitivity analyses addressed possible increased costs and complications of colonoscopy under propofol.

Overall, without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for people with overweight or obesity I-III and slightly higher than for people with normal BMI. For both men and women across all BMI strata, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 substantially decreased CRC incidence and mortality versus no screening, and the magnitude of the clinical impact was comparable across BMI.

For both sexes across BMI, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 was highly cost-effective. The cost per QALY gained for Colo10 compared with no screening became more favorable as BMI increased from normal to obesity III. FIT was cost-saving compared with no screening for all cohorts and was cost-saving or highly cost-effective compared with Colo10 within each cohort.

Initiating Colo10 at age 45 showed incremental decreases in CRC incidence and mortality, which were modest compared with the gains of Colo10 at age 50 versus no screening. However, the incremental gains were achieved at acceptable incremental costs ranging from $64,500 to $85,900 per QALY gained in women and from $33,400 to $64,200 per QALY gained in men.

Initiating Colo10 at age 40 in women and men in the lowest three BMI strata was associated with high incremental costs per QALY gained. In contrast, Colo10 initiation at age 40 cost $80,400 per QALY gained in men with obesity III and $93,300 per QALY gained in men with obesity II.

FIT starting at ages 40 or 45 yielded progressively greater decreases in CRC incidence and mortality for both men and women across BMI strata, and it was highly cost-effective versus starting at later ages. Compared with Colo10, at every screening initiation age, FIT was cost-saving or preferred based on very high incremental costs per QALY, and FIT required substantially fewer colonoscopies per person.

Intensifying screening by shortening the colonoscopy interval to Colo5 was never preferred over shifting Colo10 to earlier screening initiation ages. In all cohorts, Colo5 was either less effective and more costly than Colo10 at a younger age, or when it was more effective, the cost per QALY gained was substantially higher than $100,000 per QALY gained.

Additional studies are needed to understand obesity-specific colonoscopy risks and costs, the authors wrote. In addition, obesity is only one of several factors that should be considered when tailoring CRC screening to the level of CRC risk, they wrote.

“As the search for a multifactor prediction tool that is ready for clinical application continues, we face the question of how to approach single CRC risk factors such as obesity,” they wrote. “While screening guidelines based on BMI can be envisioned if supportive clinical data accumulate, clinical implementation must overcome operational challenges.”

The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported advisory and consultant roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Starting colorectal cancer screening earlier than age 50 appears to be cost-effective for both men and women across all body mass index (BMI) measures, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, colonoscopy is cost-effective at age 45 for all BMI strata and at age 40 in obese men. In addition, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is highly cost-effective at ages 40 or 45 for all BMI values, wrote Aaron Yeoh, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Increased body fatness, defined as a high BMI, has increased sharply in recent decades and has been associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Given the rising incidence of CRC in younger people, the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now endorse screening at age 45. In previous analyses, Dr. Yeoh and colleagues suggested that the policy is likely to be cost-effective, but they didn’t explore the potential differences by BMI.

“Our results suggest that 45 years of age is a reasonable screening initiation age for women and men with BMI ranging from normal through all classes of obesity,” the authors wrote. “Before changing screening policy, supportive data from clinical studies would be needed. Our approach can be applied to future efforts aiming to risk-stratify CRC screening based on multiple clinical factors or biomarkers.”

The research team examined the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening tailored to BMI starting as early as age 40 and ending at age 75 in 10 separate cohorts of men and women of normal weight (18.5 to <25 kg/m²), overweight (25 to <30 kg/m²), and three strata of obesity – obese I (30 to <35 kg/m²), obese II (35 to <40 kg/m²), and obese III (>40 kg/m²).

For each cohort, the researchers estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by initiating screening at age 40 versus age 45 versus age 50, or by shortening colonoscopy intervals. They modeled screening colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual FIT, offered from ages 40, 45, or 50 through age 75 with 100% adherence, with postpolypectomy surveillance through age 80.

For model inputs, the research team favored high-quality data from meta-analyses or large prospective trials. Screening, treatment, and complication costs were set at 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rates for ages 65 and older and modified to reflect commercial costs at ages 65 and younger. The authors assumed use of moderate sedation, and sensitivity analyses addressed possible increased costs and complications of colonoscopy under propofol.

Overall, without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for people with overweight or obesity I-III and slightly higher than for people with normal BMI. For both men and women across all BMI strata, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 substantially decreased CRC incidence and mortality versus no screening, and the magnitude of the clinical impact was comparable across BMI.

For both sexes across BMI, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 was highly cost-effective. The cost per QALY gained for Colo10 compared with no screening became more favorable as BMI increased from normal to obesity III. FIT was cost-saving compared with no screening for all cohorts and was cost-saving or highly cost-effective compared with Colo10 within each cohort.

Initiating Colo10 at age 45 showed incremental decreases in CRC incidence and mortality, which were modest compared with the gains of Colo10 at age 50 versus no screening. However, the incremental gains were achieved at acceptable incremental costs ranging from $64,500 to $85,900 per QALY gained in women and from $33,400 to $64,200 per QALY gained in men.

Initiating Colo10 at age 40 in women and men in the lowest three BMI strata was associated with high incremental costs per QALY gained. In contrast, Colo10 initiation at age 40 cost $80,400 per QALY gained in men with obesity III and $93,300 per QALY gained in men with obesity II.

FIT starting at ages 40 or 45 yielded progressively greater decreases in CRC incidence and mortality for both men and women across BMI strata, and it was highly cost-effective versus starting at later ages. Compared with Colo10, at every screening initiation age, FIT was cost-saving or preferred based on very high incremental costs per QALY, and FIT required substantially fewer colonoscopies per person.

Intensifying screening by shortening the colonoscopy interval to Colo5 was never preferred over shifting Colo10 to earlier screening initiation ages. In all cohorts, Colo5 was either less effective and more costly than Colo10 at a younger age, or when it was more effective, the cost per QALY gained was substantially higher than $100,000 per QALY gained.

Additional studies are needed to understand obesity-specific colonoscopy risks and costs, the authors wrote. In addition, obesity is only one of several factors that should be considered when tailoring CRC screening to the level of CRC risk, they wrote.

“As the search for a multifactor prediction tool that is ready for clinical application continues, we face the question of how to approach single CRC risk factors such as obesity,” they wrote. “While screening guidelines based on BMI can be envisioned if supportive clinical data accumulate, clinical implementation must overcome operational challenges.”

The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported advisory and consultant roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Starting colorectal cancer screening earlier than age 50 appears to be cost-effective for both men and women across all body mass index (BMI) measures, according to a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In particular, colonoscopy is cost-effective at age 45 for all BMI strata and at age 40 in obese men. In addition, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is highly cost-effective at ages 40 or 45 for all BMI values, wrote Aaron Yeoh, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Increased body fatness, defined as a high BMI, has increased sharply in recent decades and has been associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Given the rising incidence of CRC in younger people, the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now endorse screening at age 45. In previous analyses, Dr. Yeoh and colleagues suggested that the policy is likely to be cost-effective, but they didn’t explore the potential differences by BMI.

“Our results suggest that 45 years of age is a reasonable screening initiation age for women and men with BMI ranging from normal through all classes of obesity,” the authors wrote. “Before changing screening policy, supportive data from clinical studies would be needed. Our approach can be applied to future efforts aiming to risk-stratify CRC screening based on multiple clinical factors or biomarkers.”

The research team examined the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening tailored to BMI starting as early as age 40 and ending at age 75 in 10 separate cohorts of men and women of normal weight (18.5 to <25 kg/m²), overweight (25 to <30 kg/m²), and three strata of obesity – obese I (30 to <35 kg/m²), obese II (35 to <40 kg/m²), and obese III (>40 kg/m²).

For each cohort, the researchers estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by initiating screening at age 40 versus age 45 versus age 50, or by shortening colonoscopy intervals. They modeled screening colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual FIT, offered from ages 40, 45, or 50 through age 75 with 100% adherence, with postpolypectomy surveillance through age 80.

For model inputs, the research team favored high-quality data from meta-analyses or large prospective trials. Screening, treatment, and complication costs were set at 2018 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rates for ages 65 and older and modified to reflect commercial costs at ages 65 and younger. The authors assumed use of moderate sedation, and sensitivity analyses addressed possible increased costs and complications of colonoscopy under propofol.

Overall, without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for people with overweight or obesity I-III and slightly higher than for people with normal BMI. For both men and women across all BMI strata, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 substantially decreased CRC incidence and mortality versus no screening, and the magnitude of the clinical impact was comparable across BMI.

For both sexes across BMI, Colo10 or FIT starting at age 50 was highly cost-effective. The cost per QALY gained for Colo10 compared with no screening became more favorable as BMI increased from normal to obesity III. FIT was cost-saving compared with no screening for all cohorts and was cost-saving or highly cost-effective compared with Colo10 within each cohort.

Initiating Colo10 at age 45 showed incremental decreases in CRC incidence and mortality, which were modest compared with the gains of Colo10 at age 50 versus no screening. However, the incremental gains were achieved at acceptable incremental costs ranging from $64,500 to $85,900 per QALY gained in women and from $33,400 to $64,200 per QALY gained in men.

Initiating Colo10 at age 40 in women and men in the lowest three BMI strata was associated with high incremental costs per QALY gained. In contrast, Colo10 initiation at age 40 cost $80,400 per QALY gained in men with obesity III and $93,300 per QALY gained in men with obesity II.

FIT starting at ages 40 or 45 yielded progressively greater decreases in CRC incidence and mortality for both men and women across BMI strata, and it was highly cost-effective versus starting at later ages. Compared with Colo10, at every screening initiation age, FIT was cost-saving or preferred based on very high incremental costs per QALY, and FIT required substantially fewer colonoscopies per person.

Intensifying screening by shortening the colonoscopy interval to Colo5 was never preferred over shifting Colo10 to earlier screening initiation ages. In all cohorts, Colo5 was either less effective and more costly than Colo10 at a younger age, or when it was more effective, the cost per QALY gained was substantially higher than $100,000 per QALY gained.

Additional studies are needed to understand obesity-specific colonoscopy risks and costs, the authors wrote. In addition, obesity is only one of several factors that should be considered when tailoring CRC screening to the level of CRC risk, they wrote.

“As the search for a multifactor prediction tool that is ready for clinical application continues, we face the question of how to approach single CRC risk factors such as obesity,” they wrote. “While screening guidelines based on BMI can be envisioned if supportive clinical data accumulate, clinical implementation must overcome operational challenges.”

The study funding was not disclosed. One author reported advisory and consultant roles for several medical companies, and the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.