Clinical Endocrinology News

A systematic review of nutritional supplements for hair loss finds that a wide range of the products have potential but that the studies could not provide definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness because of small sample sizes, heterogeneity of hair loss types in study subjects, or other limitations.

The review, published online in JAMA Dermatology, notes that “Twelve of the 20 nutritional interventions had high-quality studies suggesting objectively evaluated effectiveness.”

It is “ground breaking,” in part because of its breadth and depth, said Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, a dermatologist in Towson, Md., who often recommends supplements for her patients with hair loss. “It basically kind of vindicates what some of us have been doing for a number of years in terms of treating hair loss,” she told this news organization. “It should hopefully make it more commonplace for dermatologists to consider using nutritional supplements as an adjuvant to treating hair loss,” added Dr. Simmons-O’Brien.

The review “is very helpful,” agreed Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine at Boston University. Dr. Goldberg noted that many patients are already taking supplements and want to know whether they are safe and effective. The review “points out what the problems are; it talks about what the individual ingredients are and what they do, what the problems are; and it concluded that some people may find these helpful. Which is exactly what I tell my patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also director of the Hair Clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“For patients who are highly motivated and eager to try this, we’re hoping that this systematic review serves as a foundation to have a conversation,” study coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, told this news organization. “When there’s medical uncertainty and the question is how much risk is one willing to take, the most important thing to do is to present the data and engage in shared decision-making with the patient,” noted Dr. Mostaghimi, who is also director of the inpatient dermatology consult service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
 

Surprising effectiveness

Going into the study, “we felt it would be likely that majority of nutritional supplements would either not be effective or not studied,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi and his coauthors conducted the study because so many patients take nutritional supplements to address hair loss, he said. An initial literature survey yielded more than 6,300 citations, but after screening and reviews, the authors included 30 articles for evaluation.

The review begins with a look at studies of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), a botanical compound thought to inhibit the enzyme 5-alpha reductase (5AR), which converts testosterone to dihydroxytestosterone (DHT). DHT is a mediator of androgenic alopecia (AGA). The studies suggest that the compound might stabilize hair loss, “although its effect is likely less than that of finasteride,” write the authors. They also note that side effects associated with finasteride, such as sexual dysfunction, were also observed with saw palmetto “but to a lesser extent.”

For AGA, pumpkin seed oil may also be effective and a “potential alternative” to finasteride for AGA, and Forti5, a nutritional supplement that includes botanical 5AR inhibitors and other ingredients, had favorable effects in one study, the authors write. But neither has been compared to finasteride, and the Forti5 study lacked a control group.

The review also examines the micronutrients vitamin D, zinc, B vitamins, and antioxidants. Low levels of vitamin D have been associated with alopecia areata (AA), AGA, and telogen effluvium (TE) in some studies, and zinc deficiencies have been associated with TE, hair breakage, and thinning, according to the review. A single-arm vitamin D study showed improved results at 6 months for women with TE, but there was no control group and TE is self-resolving, the authors add. Studies in patients with normal zinc levels at baseline who had AA or hair loss showed significant hair regrowth and increased hair thickness and density, but the trials were a mishmash of controls and no controls and relied on self-perceived hair-loss data.

Larger more rigorous studies should be done to evaluate zinc’s effectiveness with AA, the authors comment.

Many patients take vitamin B7 (biotin) for hair loss. It has not been studied on its own but was an ingredient in some supplements in the review. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that biotin won’t result in new hair growth but that it can help strengthen the new hairs that grow as a result of other therapies. Both she and the study authors note that the Food and Drug Administration has warned against biotin supplementation because it can interfere with troponin and other test results.

The review also finds that immunomodulators –such as Chinese herbal extracts from paeony and glycyrrhizin – were effective in severe AA. Growth hormone modulators targeting deficiencies in insulin growth factor 1 or growth hormone are also promising. Studies of the modulators capsaicin and isoflavones – used topically – spurred hair growth, the authors write.

Products containing marine protein supplements, including Viviscal and Nourkrin, appeared effective in increasing hair counts in men and women, but the studies were funded by the manufacturer and were not well controlled. Side effects with Viviscal included bloating, according to the review.

The multi-ingredient supplements Nutrafol, Omni-Three, Apple Nutraceutical, and Lambdapil were also included in the review. Only Omni-Three showed no effectiveness, but studies of the other supplements had various limitations, including lack of controls and small sample sizes.
 

Complicated problem, multiple solutions

Given the many reasons for hair loss, multiple solutions are needed, the dermatologists note.

Dr. Mostaghimi said that he’s still a bit skeptical that supplements work as consistently as described or as well as described, given that he and his coauthors were unable to find any negative studies. In talking with patients who are taking supplements, he said that his first aim is to make sure they are safe. At least the supplements in the review have been studied for safety, he added.

He will encourage replacement of vitamin D or zinc or other vitamins or minerals if patients are deficient but said that he does not “actively encourage supplementation.”

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that, when evaluating patients with hair loss, she orders lab tests to determine whether the patient has anemia or a thyroid issue or deficiencies in vitamins or minerals or other nutritional deficiencies, asks about diet and styling practices, and takes a scalp biopsy. It is not uncommon to recommend supplementation on the basis of those findings, she added.

“As a hair-loss specialist, my job is to treat the patient at their level, in their framework, in their comfort zone,” said Dr. Goldberg. Some patients don’t want to take medications for hair loss, so she might recommend supplements in those cases but tells patients that they aren’t well studied.

She added that it can be hard to tell whether a supplement is working, particularly if it has multiple ingredients.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported consulting fees from Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, Hims and Hers, Equillium, AbbVie, Digital Diagnostics, and Bioniz and grants from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Mostaghimi disclosed that he is an associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding the review of the manuscript or its acceptance. No other disclosures were reported by the other study authors. Dr. Goldberg reported no disclosures. Dr. Simmons-O›Brien is a medical consultant for Isdin, but not for hair products.

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

A systematic review of nutritional supplements for hair loss finds that a wide range of the products have potential but that the studies could not provide definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness because of small sample sizes, heterogeneity of hair loss types in study subjects, or other limitations.

The review, published online in JAMA Dermatology, notes that “Twelve of the 20 nutritional interventions had high-quality studies suggesting objectively evaluated effectiveness.”

It is “ground breaking,” in part because of its breadth and depth, said Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, a dermatologist in Towson, Md., who often recommends supplements for her patients with hair loss. “It basically kind of vindicates what some of us have been doing for a number of years in terms of treating hair loss,” she told this news organization. “It should hopefully make it more commonplace for dermatologists to consider using nutritional supplements as an adjuvant to treating hair loss,” added Dr. Simmons-O’Brien.

The review “is very helpful,” agreed Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine at Boston University. Dr. Goldberg noted that many patients are already taking supplements and want to know whether they are safe and effective. The review “points out what the problems are; it talks about what the individual ingredients are and what they do, what the problems are; and it concluded that some people may find these helpful. Which is exactly what I tell my patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also director of the Hair Clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“For patients who are highly motivated and eager to try this, we’re hoping that this systematic review serves as a foundation to have a conversation,” study coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, told this news organization. “When there’s medical uncertainty and the question is how much risk is one willing to take, the most important thing to do is to present the data and engage in shared decision-making with the patient,” noted Dr. Mostaghimi, who is also director of the inpatient dermatology consult service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
 

Surprising effectiveness

Going into the study, “we felt it would be likely that majority of nutritional supplements would either not be effective or not studied,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi and his coauthors conducted the study because so many patients take nutritional supplements to address hair loss, he said. An initial literature survey yielded more than 6,300 citations, but after screening and reviews, the authors included 30 articles for evaluation.

The review begins with a look at studies of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), a botanical compound thought to inhibit the enzyme 5-alpha reductase (5AR), which converts testosterone to dihydroxytestosterone (DHT). DHT is a mediator of androgenic alopecia (AGA). The studies suggest that the compound might stabilize hair loss, “although its effect is likely less than that of finasteride,” write the authors. They also note that side effects associated with finasteride, such as sexual dysfunction, were also observed with saw palmetto “but to a lesser extent.”

For AGA, pumpkin seed oil may also be effective and a “potential alternative” to finasteride for AGA, and Forti5, a nutritional supplement that includes botanical 5AR inhibitors and other ingredients, had favorable effects in one study, the authors write. But neither has been compared to finasteride, and the Forti5 study lacked a control group.

The review also examines the micronutrients vitamin D, zinc, B vitamins, and antioxidants. Low levels of vitamin D have been associated with alopecia areata (AA), AGA, and telogen effluvium (TE) in some studies, and zinc deficiencies have been associated with TE, hair breakage, and thinning, according to the review. A single-arm vitamin D study showed improved results at 6 months for women with TE, but there was no control group and TE is self-resolving, the authors add. Studies in patients with normal zinc levels at baseline who had AA or hair loss showed significant hair regrowth and increased hair thickness and density, but the trials were a mishmash of controls and no controls and relied on self-perceived hair-loss data.

Larger more rigorous studies should be done to evaluate zinc’s effectiveness with AA, the authors comment.

Many patients take vitamin B7 (biotin) for hair loss. It has not been studied on its own but was an ingredient in some supplements in the review. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that biotin won’t result in new hair growth but that it can help strengthen the new hairs that grow as a result of other therapies. Both she and the study authors note that the Food and Drug Administration has warned against biotin supplementation because it can interfere with troponin and other test results.

The review also finds that immunomodulators –such as Chinese herbal extracts from paeony and glycyrrhizin – were effective in severe AA. Growth hormone modulators targeting deficiencies in insulin growth factor 1 or growth hormone are also promising. Studies of the modulators capsaicin and isoflavones – used topically – spurred hair growth, the authors write.

Products containing marine protein supplements, including Viviscal and Nourkrin, appeared effective in increasing hair counts in men and women, but the studies were funded by the manufacturer and were not well controlled. Side effects with Viviscal included bloating, according to the review.

The multi-ingredient supplements Nutrafol, Omni-Three, Apple Nutraceutical, and Lambdapil were also included in the review. Only Omni-Three showed no effectiveness, but studies of the other supplements had various limitations, including lack of controls and small sample sizes.
 

Complicated problem, multiple solutions

Given the many reasons for hair loss, multiple solutions are needed, the dermatologists note.

Dr. Mostaghimi said that he’s still a bit skeptical that supplements work as consistently as described or as well as described, given that he and his coauthors were unable to find any negative studies. In talking with patients who are taking supplements, he said that his first aim is to make sure they are safe. At least the supplements in the review have been studied for safety, he added.

He will encourage replacement of vitamin D or zinc or other vitamins or minerals if patients are deficient but said that he does not “actively encourage supplementation.”

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that, when evaluating patients with hair loss, she orders lab tests to determine whether the patient has anemia or a thyroid issue or deficiencies in vitamins or minerals or other nutritional deficiencies, asks about diet and styling practices, and takes a scalp biopsy. It is not uncommon to recommend supplementation on the basis of those findings, she added.

“As a hair-loss specialist, my job is to treat the patient at their level, in their framework, in their comfort zone,” said Dr. Goldberg. Some patients don’t want to take medications for hair loss, so she might recommend supplements in those cases but tells patients that they aren’t well studied.

She added that it can be hard to tell whether a supplement is working, particularly if it has multiple ingredients.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported consulting fees from Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, Hims and Hers, Equillium, AbbVie, Digital Diagnostics, and Bioniz and grants from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Mostaghimi disclosed that he is an associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding the review of the manuscript or its acceptance. No other disclosures were reported by the other study authors. Dr. Goldberg reported no disclosures. Dr. Simmons-O›Brien is a medical consultant for Isdin, but not for hair products.

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

A systematic review of nutritional supplements for hair loss finds that a wide range of the products have potential but that the studies could not provide definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness because of small sample sizes, heterogeneity of hair loss types in study subjects, or other limitations.

The review, published online in JAMA Dermatology, notes that “Twelve of the 20 nutritional interventions had high-quality studies suggesting objectively evaluated effectiveness.”

It is “ground breaking,” in part because of its breadth and depth, said Eva Simmons-O’Brien, MD, a dermatologist in Towson, Md., who often recommends supplements for her patients with hair loss. “It basically kind of vindicates what some of us have been doing for a number of years in terms of treating hair loss,” she told this news organization. “It should hopefully make it more commonplace for dermatologists to consider using nutritional supplements as an adjuvant to treating hair loss,” added Dr. Simmons-O’Brien.

The review “is very helpful,” agreed Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine at Boston University. Dr. Goldberg noted that many patients are already taking supplements and want to know whether they are safe and effective. The review “points out what the problems are; it talks about what the individual ingredients are and what they do, what the problems are; and it concluded that some people may find these helpful. Which is exactly what I tell my patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also director of the Hair Clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“For patients who are highly motivated and eager to try this, we’re hoping that this systematic review serves as a foundation to have a conversation,” study coauthor Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, told this news organization. “When there’s medical uncertainty and the question is how much risk is one willing to take, the most important thing to do is to present the data and engage in shared decision-making with the patient,” noted Dr. Mostaghimi, who is also director of the inpatient dermatology consult service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
 

Surprising effectiveness

Going into the study, “we felt it would be likely that majority of nutritional supplements would either not be effective or not studied,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi and his coauthors conducted the study because so many patients take nutritional supplements to address hair loss, he said. An initial literature survey yielded more than 6,300 citations, but after screening and reviews, the authors included 30 articles for evaluation.

The review begins with a look at studies of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), a botanical compound thought to inhibit the enzyme 5-alpha reductase (5AR), which converts testosterone to dihydroxytestosterone (DHT). DHT is a mediator of androgenic alopecia (AGA). The studies suggest that the compound might stabilize hair loss, “although its effect is likely less than that of finasteride,” write the authors. They also note that side effects associated with finasteride, such as sexual dysfunction, were also observed with saw palmetto “but to a lesser extent.”

For AGA, pumpkin seed oil may also be effective and a “potential alternative” to finasteride for AGA, and Forti5, a nutritional supplement that includes botanical 5AR inhibitors and other ingredients, had favorable effects in one study, the authors write. But neither has been compared to finasteride, and the Forti5 study lacked a control group.

The review also examines the micronutrients vitamin D, zinc, B vitamins, and antioxidants. Low levels of vitamin D have been associated with alopecia areata (AA), AGA, and telogen effluvium (TE) in some studies, and zinc deficiencies have been associated with TE, hair breakage, and thinning, according to the review. A single-arm vitamin D study showed improved results at 6 months for women with TE, but there was no control group and TE is self-resolving, the authors add. Studies in patients with normal zinc levels at baseline who had AA or hair loss showed significant hair regrowth and increased hair thickness and density, but the trials were a mishmash of controls and no controls and relied on self-perceived hair-loss data.

Larger more rigorous studies should be done to evaluate zinc’s effectiveness with AA, the authors comment.

Many patients take vitamin B7 (biotin) for hair loss. It has not been studied on its own but was an ingredient in some supplements in the review. Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that biotin won’t result in new hair growth but that it can help strengthen the new hairs that grow as a result of other therapies. Both she and the study authors note that the Food and Drug Administration has warned against biotin supplementation because it can interfere with troponin and other test results.

The review also finds that immunomodulators –such as Chinese herbal extracts from paeony and glycyrrhizin – were effective in severe AA. Growth hormone modulators targeting deficiencies in insulin growth factor 1 or growth hormone are also promising. Studies of the modulators capsaicin and isoflavones – used topically – spurred hair growth, the authors write.

Products containing marine protein supplements, including Viviscal and Nourkrin, appeared effective in increasing hair counts in men and women, but the studies were funded by the manufacturer and were not well controlled. Side effects with Viviscal included bloating, according to the review.

The multi-ingredient supplements Nutrafol, Omni-Three, Apple Nutraceutical, and Lambdapil were also included in the review. Only Omni-Three showed no effectiveness, but studies of the other supplements had various limitations, including lack of controls and small sample sizes.
 

Complicated problem, multiple solutions

Given the many reasons for hair loss, multiple solutions are needed, the dermatologists note.

Dr. Mostaghimi said that he’s still a bit skeptical that supplements work as consistently as described or as well as described, given that he and his coauthors were unable to find any negative studies. In talking with patients who are taking supplements, he said that his first aim is to make sure they are safe. At least the supplements in the review have been studied for safety, he added.

He will encourage replacement of vitamin D or zinc or other vitamins or minerals if patients are deficient but said that he does not “actively encourage supplementation.”

Dr. Simmons-O’Brien said that, when evaluating patients with hair loss, she orders lab tests to determine whether the patient has anemia or a thyroid issue or deficiencies in vitamins or minerals or other nutritional deficiencies, asks about diet and styling practices, and takes a scalp biopsy. It is not uncommon to recommend supplementation on the basis of those findings, she added.

“As a hair-loss specialist, my job is to treat the patient at their level, in their framework, in their comfort zone,” said Dr. Goldberg. Some patients don’t want to take medications for hair loss, so she might recommend supplements in those cases but tells patients that they aren’t well studied.

She added that it can be hard to tell whether a supplement is working, particularly if it has multiple ingredients.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported consulting fees from Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, Hims and Hers, Equillium, AbbVie, Digital Diagnostics, and Bioniz and grants from Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Mostaghimi disclosed that he is an associate editor of JAMA Dermatology but was not involved in any of the decisions regarding the review of the manuscript or its acceptance. No other disclosures were reported by the other study authors. Dr. Goldberg reported no disclosures. Dr. Simmons-O›Brien is a medical consultant for Isdin, but not for hair products.

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

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

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

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

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

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

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

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”

The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.

“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.

Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.

Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.

Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.

It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.

Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.

Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.

Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.

In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.

The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.

In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.

“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.

The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.

Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.

“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.

Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.

Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.

Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.

If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.

How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.

“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.

J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”

Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.

None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.

In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”

Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.

In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”

In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.

For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.

So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.

Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”

The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.

“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.

Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.

Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.

Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.

It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.

Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.

Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.

Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.

In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.

The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.

In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.

“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.

The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.

Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.

“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.

Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.

Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.

Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.

If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.

How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.

“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.

J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”

Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.

None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.

In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”

Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.

In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”

In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.

For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.

So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.

Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Anna Sutton was shocked when she received a letter from her husband’s job-based health plan stating that Humira, an expensive drug used to treat her daughter’s juvenile arthritis, was now on a long list of medications considered “nonessential benefits.”

The July 2021 letter said the family could either participate in a new effort overseen by a company called SaveOnSP and get the drug free of charge or be saddled with a monthly copayment that could top $1,000.

“It really gave us no choice,” said Mrs. Sutton, of Woodinville, Wash. She added that “every single [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for juvenile arthritis” was on the list of nonessential benefits.

Mrs. Sutton had unwittingly become part of a strategy that employers are using to deal with the high cost of drugs prescribed to treat conditions such as arthritis, psoriasis, cancer, and hemophilia.

Those employers are tapping into dollars provided through programs they have previously criticized: patient financial assistance initiatives set up by drugmakers, which some benefit managers have complained encourage patients to stay on expensive brand-name drugs when less expensive options might be available.

Now, though, employers, or the vendors and insurers they hire specifically to oversee such efforts, are seeking that money to offset their own costs. Drugmakers object, saying the money was intended primarily for patients. But some benefit brokers and companies like SaveOnSP say they can help trim employers’ spending on insurance – which, they say, could be the difference between an employer offering coverage to workers or not.

It’s the latest twist in a long-running dispute between the drug industry and insurers over which group is more to blame for rising costs to patients. And patients are, again, caught in the middle.

Patient advocates say the term “nonessential” stresses patients out even though it doesn’t mean the drugs – often called “specialty” drugs because of their high prices or the way they are made – are unnecessary.

Some advocates fear the new strategies could be “a way to weed out those with costly health care needs,” said Rachel Klein, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. Workers who rely on the drugs may feel pressured to change insurers or jobs.

Two versions of the new strategy are in play. Both are used mainly by self-insured employers that hire vendors, like SaveOnSP, which then work with the employers’ pharmacy benefit managers, such as Express Scripts/Cigna, to implement the strategy. There are also smaller vendors, like SHARx and Payer Matrix, some of which work directly with employers.

In one approach, insurers or employers continue to cover the drugs but designate them as “nonessential,” which allows the health plans to bypass annual limits set by the Affordable Care Act on how much patients can pay in out-of-pocket costs for drugs. The employer or hired vendor then raises the copay required of the worker, often sharply, but offers to substantially cut or eliminate that copay if the patient participates in the new effort. Workers who agree enroll in drugmaker financial assistance programs meant to cover the drug copays, and the vendor monitoring the effort aims to capture the maximum amount the drugmaker provides annually, according to a lawsuit filed in May by drugmaker Johnson & Johnson against SaveOnSP, which is based in Elma, N.Y.

The employer must still cover part of the cost of the drug, but the amount is reduced by the amount of copay assistance that is accessed. That assistance can vary widely and be as much as $20,000 a year for some drugs.

In the other approach, employers don’t bother naming drugs nonessential; they simply drop coverage for specific drugs or classes of drugs. Then, the outside vendor helps patients provide the financial and other information needed to apply for free medication from drugmakers through charity programs intended for uninsured patients.

“We’re seeing it in every state at this point,” said Becky Burns, chief operating officer and chief financial officer at the Bleeding and Clotting Disorders Institute in Peoria, Ill., a federally funded hemophilia treatment center.

The strategies are mostly being used in self-insured employer health plans, which are governed by federal laws that give broad flexibility to employers in designing health benefits.

Still, some patient advocates say these programs can lead to delays for patients in accessing medications while applications are processed – and sometimes unexpected bills for consumers.

“We have patients get billed after they max out their assistance,” said Kollet Koulianos, vice president of payer relations at the National Hemophilia Foundation. Once she gets involved, vendors often claim the bills were sent in error.

Even though only about 2% of the workforce needs the drugs, which can cost thousands of dollars a dose, they can lead to a hefty financial liability for self-insured employers, said Drew Mann, a benefits consultant in Knoxville, Tenn., whose clientele includes employers that use variations of these programs.

Before employer health plans took advantage of such assistance, patients often signed up for these programs on their own, receiving coupons that covered their share of the drug’s cost. In that circumstance, drugmakers often paid less than they do under the new employer schemes because a patient’s out-of-pocket costs were capped at lower amounts.

Brokers and the CEOs of firms offering the new programs say that in most cases patients continue to get their drugs, often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.

If workers do not qualify for charity because their income is too high, or for another reason, the employer might make an exception and pay the claim or look for an alternative solution, Mr. Mann said. Patient groups noted that some specialty drugs may not have any alternatives.

How this practice will play out in the long run remains uncertain. Drugmakers offer both copay assistance and charity care in part because they know many patients, even those with insurance, cannot afford their products. The programs are also good public relations and a tax write-off. But the new emphasis by some employers on maximizing the amount they or their insurers can collect from the programs could cause some drugmakers to take issue with the new strategies or even reconsider their programs.

“Even though our client, like most manufacturers, provides billions in discounts and rebates to health insurers as part of their negotiations, the insurers also want this additional pool of funds, which is meant to help people who can’t meet the copay,” said Harry Sandick, a lawyer representing J&J.

J&J’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, alleges that patients are “coerced” into participating in copay assistance programs after their drugs are deemed “nonessential” and therefore are “no longer subject to the ACA’s annual out-of-pocket maximum.”

Once patients enroll, the money from the drugmaker goes to the insurer or employer plan, with SaveOnSP retaining 25%, according to the lawsuit. It claims J&J has lost $100 million to these efforts.

None of that money counts toward patients’ deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums for the year.

In addition to the lawsuit over the copay assistance program efforts, there has been other reaction to the new employer strategies. In an October letter to physicians, the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation, a separate entity, said it will no longer offer free medications to patients with insurance starting in January, citing the rise of such “alternative funding programs.”

Still, J&J spokesperson L.D. Platt said the drugmaker has plans, also in January, to roll out other assistance to patients who may be “underinsured” so they won’t be affected by the foundation’s decision.

In a statement, SaveOnSP said that employers object to drug companies’ “using their employees’ ongoing need for these drugs as an excuse to keep hiking the drugs’ prices” and that the firm simply “advises these employers on how to fight back against rising prices while getting employees the drugs they need at no cost to the employees.”

In a court filing, SaveOnSP said drugmakers have another option if they don’t like efforts by insurers and employers to max out what they can get from the programs: reduce the amount of assistance available. J&J, the filing said, did just that when it recently cut its allotted amount of copay assistance for psoriasis drugs Stelara and Tremfya from $20,000 to $6,000 per participant annually. The filing noted that SaveOnSP participants would still have no copay for those drugs.

For Mrs. Sutton’s part, her family did participate in the program offered through her husband’s work-based insurance plan, agreeing to have SaveOnSP monitor their enrollment and payments from the drugmaker.

So far, her 15-year-old daughter has continued to get Humira, and she has not been billed a copay.

Even so, “the whole process seems kind of slimy to me,” she said. “The patients are caught in the middle between the drug industry and the insurance industry, each trying to get as much money as possible out of the other.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a new study finds.

These findings add to a growing body of evidence supporting a range of positive benefits from dapagliflozin, including reduced risks of mortality, cardiovascular events, and kidney events, lead author Meir Schechter, MD, PhD, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.“Although cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied extensively, there is a paucity of data evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on hospitalizations for any cause.”

The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the DAPA-CKD trial, which involved 4,304 patients with CKD in 21 countries. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg orally once a day or matching placebo. The present analysis quantified first hospitalizations for any cause, all hospitalizations, cause-specific hospitalizations, and several related outcomes.

After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 28% of the population had been hospitalized a total of 2,072 times.

Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin significantly reduced risk of first hospitalization by 16% (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.94) and rate of all hospitalizations by 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89). These findings remained significant regardless of type 2 diabetes status, with significant benefits seen across reasons for admission, including renal/urinary disorders, cardiac disorders, neoplasms, and metabolism/nutrition disorders. In addition, dapagliflozin was associated with shorter mean time in hospital (2.3 vs. 2.8 days; P = .027) and longer time alive and out of hospital (354.9 vs. 351.7; P = .023).

“These findings highlight additional benefits of dapagliflozin beyond those seen for cardiovascular and kidney events, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] slope, and albuminuria and should be considered when evaluating the totality of evidence favoring provision of dapagliflozin to patients with CKD,” the investigators concluded.
 

Positive data, positive experiences

Shree Mulay, MD, a nephrologist in private practice in western Tennessee, said this study is “one of several other articles that already exist” demonstrating the broad benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The evidence is pretty substantial,” Dr. Mulay said in an interview. “I think SGLT2 inhibitors are the new statin of this era. ... I won’t be surprised if in the next year or 2 or 3 they truly become the standard of care.”

Dr. Mulay also speaks from experience working in both the chronic and acute setting, where he’s observed “some magical stuff happening” in patients started on SGLT2 inhibitors, especially those in heart failure who are fluid overloaded.

“It’s phenomenal stuff,” Dr. Mulay said. “You can really stabilize patients’ hemodynamics.”

In the private health care setting, he described widespread enthusiasm among nephrologists, although others still appear skeptical.

“It’s really our cardiology colleagues that I feel are underprescribing it,” Dr. Mulay said. “So, I’m kind of taking it on myself, when I see a heart failure patient, to go ahead and put them on this.”

It’s unclear why some cardiologists seem apprehensive, Dr. Mulay continued, although he suggested that unclear guidelines and a lack of first-hand experience may be to blame.
 

Nephrologists and cardiologists sometimes agree

In the academic arena, Leslie Gewin, MD, associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis and the John Cochran VA Hospital, also in St. Louis, has seen similar support for SGLT2 inhibitors among both nephrologists and cardiologists.

“We had a joint nephrology-cardiology medicine grand rounds at Wash U in St. Louis maybe 2 weeks ago,” Dr. Gewin said in an interview. “The cardiologists and nephrologists tag-teamed to present data about SGLT2 inhibitors, and we kind of joked that this was the one thing we both could get behind and support.”

Still, she has seen some reluctance among non-nephrology clinicians lacking SGLT2 experience, specifically when managing patients who have poor kidney function.

“There can be some hesitancy among physicians if the GFR is low,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s where I’ve had to sort of push the envelope with non-nephrologists, saying: ‘Look, we feel pretty comfortable starting down to a GFR of about 20.’ ”

Early rises in creatinine may also spook providers, she noted.

“Sometimes, when we start SGLT2 inhibitors, the creatinine increases slightly, and the [primary care provider] gets concerned,” Dr. Gewin said. “We say: ‘No, this is expected. Don’t worry, hold the course, this is a good drug.’ ”

Like Dr. Mulay, Dr. Gewin said the present study offers further encouragement for the efficacy of this drug class. She also said sufficient data have been published to allay earlier concerns about potential safety signals, such as bone fractures and amputations.

“SGLT2 inhibitors seem to be a lot safer than what we initially had thought,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s very encouraging.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Bayer, Janssen, Gilead, and others. Dr. Gewin and Dr. Mulay disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a new study finds.

These findings add to a growing body of evidence supporting a range of positive benefits from dapagliflozin, including reduced risks of mortality, cardiovascular events, and kidney events, lead author Meir Schechter, MD, PhD, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.“Although cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied extensively, there is a paucity of data evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on hospitalizations for any cause.”

The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the DAPA-CKD trial, which involved 4,304 patients with CKD in 21 countries. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg orally once a day or matching placebo. The present analysis quantified first hospitalizations for any cause, all hospitalizations, cause-specific hospitalizations, and several related outcomes.

After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 28% of the population had been hospitalized a total of 2,072 times.

Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin significantly reduced risk of first hospitalization by 16% (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.94) and rate of all hospitalizations by 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89). These findings remained significant regardless of type 2 diabetes status, with significant benefits seen across reasons for admission, including renal/urinary disorders, cardiac disorders, neoplasms, and metabolism/nutrition disorders. In addition, dapagliflozin was associated with shorter mean time in hospital (2.3 vs. 2.8 days; P = .027) and longer time alive and out of hospital (354.9 vs. 351.7; P = .023).

“These findings highlight additional benefits of dapagliflozin beyond those seen for cardiovascular and kidney events, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] slope, and albuminuria and should be considered when evaluating the totality of evidence favoring provision of dapagliflozin to patients with CKD,” the investigators concluded.
 

Positive data, positive experiences

Shree Mulay, MD, a nephrologist in private practice in western Tennessee, said this study is “one of several other articles that already exist” demonstrating the broad benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The evidence is pretty substantial,” Dr. Mulay said in an interview. “I think SGLT2 inhibitors are the new statin of this era. ... I won’t be surprised if in the next year or 2 or 3 they truly become the standard of care.”

Dr. Mulay also speaks from experience working in both the chronic and acute setting, where he’s observed “some magical stuff happening” in patients started on SGLT2 inhibitors, especially those in heart failure who are fluid overloaded.

“It’s phenomenal stuff,” Dr. Mulay said. “You can really stabilize patients’ hemodynamics.”

In the private health care setting, he described widespread enthusiasm among nephrologists, although others still appear skeptical.

“It’s really our cardiology colleagues that I feel are underprescribing it,” Dr. Mulay said. “So, I’m kind of taking it on myself, when I see a heart failure patient, to go ahead and put them on this.”

It’s unclear why some cardiologists seem apprehensive, Dr. Mulay continued, although he suggested that unclear guidelines and a lack of first-hand experience may be to blame.
 

Nephrologists and cardiologists sometimes agree

In the academic arena, Leslie Gewin, MD, associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis and the John Cochran VA Hospital, also in St. Louis, has seen similar support for SGLT2 inhibitors among both nephrologists and cardiologists.

“We had a joint nephrology-cardiology medicine grand rounds at Wash U in St. Louis maybe 2 weeks ago,” Dr. Gewin said in an interview. “The cardiologists and nephrologists tag-teamed to present data about SGLT2 inhibitors, and we kind of joked that this was the one thing we both could get behind and support.”

Still, she has seen some reluctance among non-nephrology clinicians lacking SGLT2 experience, specifically when managing patients who have poor kidney function.

“There can be some hesitancy among physicians if the GFR is low,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s where I’ve had to sort of push the envelope with non-nephrologists, saying: ‘Look, we feel pretty comfortable starting down to a GFR of about 20.’ ”

Early rises in creatinine may also spook providers, she noted.

“Sometimes, when we start SGLT2 inhibitors, the creatinine increases slightly, and the [primary care provider] gets concerned,” Dr. Gewin said. “We say: ‘No, this is expected. Don’t worry, hold the course, this is a good drug.’ ”

Like Dr. Mulay, Dr. Gewin said the present study offers further encouragement for the efficacy of this drug class. She also said sufficient data have been published to allay earlier concerns about potential safety signals, such as bone fractures and amputations.

“SGLT2 inhibitors seem to be a lot safer than what we initially had thought,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s very encouraging.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Bayer, Janssen, Gilead, and others. Dr. Gewin and Dr. Mulay disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a new study finds.

These findings add to a growing body of evidence supporting a range of positive benefits from dapagliflozin, including reduced risks of mortality, cardiovascular events, and kidney events, lead author Meir Schechter, MD, PhD, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and colleagues wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.“Although cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied extensively, there is a paucity of data evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on hospitalizations for any cause.”

The findings are based on a post hoc analysis of the DAPA-CKD trial, which involved 4,304 patients with CKD in 21 countries. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg orally once a day or matching placebo. The present analysis quantified first hospitalizations for any cause, all hospitalizations, cause-specific hospitalizations, and several related outcomes.

After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 28% of the population had been hospitalized a total of 2,072 times.

Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin significantly reduced risk of first hospitalization by 16% (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.94) and rate of all hospitalizations by 21% (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89). These findings remained significant regardless of type 2 diabetes status, with significant benefits seen across reasons for admission, including renal/urinary disorders, cardiac disorders, neoplasms, and metabolism/nutrition disorders. In addition, dapagliflozin was associated with shorter mean time in hospital (2.3 vs. 2.8 days; P = .027) and longer time alive and out of hospital (354.9 vs. 351.7; P = .023).

“These findings highlight additional benefits of dapagliflozin beyond those seen for cardiovascular and kidney events, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] slope, and albuminuria and should be considered when evaluating the totality of evidence favoring provision of dapagliflozin to patients with CKD,” the investigators concluded.
 

Positive data, positive experiences

Shree Mulay, MD, a nephrologist in private practice in western Tennessee, said this study is “one of several other articles that already exist” demonstrating the broad benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The evidence is pretty substantial,” Dr. Mulay said in an interview. “I think SGLT2 inhibitors are the new statin of this era. ... I won’t be surprised if in the next year or 2 or 3 they truly become the standard of care.”

Dr. Mulay also speaks from experience working in both the chronic and acute setting, where he’s observed “some magical stuff happening” in patients started on SGLT2 inhibitors, especially those in heart failure who are fluid overloaded.

“It’s phenomenal stuff,” Dr. Mulay said. “You can really stabilize patients’ hemodynamics.”

In the private health care setting, he described widespread enthusiasm among nephrologists, although others still appear skeptical.

“It’s really our cardiology colleagues that I feel are underprescribing it,” Dr. Mulay said. “So, I’m kind of taking it on myself, when I see a heart failure patient, to go ahead and put them on this.”

It’s unclear why some cardiologists seem apprehensive, Dr. Mulay continued, although he suggested that unclear guidelines and a lack of first-hand experience may be to blame.
 

Nephrologists and cardiologists sometimes agree

In the academic arena, Leslie Gewin, MD, associate professor at Washington University in St. Louis and the John Cochran VA Hospital, also in St. Louis, has seen similar support for SGLT2 inhibitors among both nephrologists and cardiologists.

“We had a joint nephrology-cardiology medicine grand rounds at Wash U in St. Louis maybe 2 weeks ago,” Dr. Gewin said in an interview. “The cardiologists and nephrologists tag-teamed to present data about SGLT2 inhibitors, and we kind of joked that this was the one thing we both could get behind and support.”

Still, she has seen some reluctance among non-nephrology clinicians lacking SGLT2 experience, specifically when managing patients who have poor kidney function.

“There can be some hesitancy among physicians if the GFR is low,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s where I’ve had to sort of push the envelope with non-nephrologists, saying: ‘Look, we feel pretty comfortable starting down to a GFR of about 20.’ ”

Early rises in creatinine may also spook providers, she noted.

“Sometimes, when we start SGLT2 inhibitors, the creatinine increases slightly, and the [primary care provider] gets concerned,” Dr. Gewin said. “We say: ‘No, this is expected. Don’t worry, hold the course, this is a good drug.’ ”

Like Dr. Mulay, Dr. Gewin said the present study offers further encouragement for the efficacy of this drug class. She also said sufficient data have been published to allay earlier concerns about potential safety signals, such as bone fractures and amputations.

“SGLT2 inhibitors seem to be a lot safer than what we initially had thought,” Dr. Gewin said. “That’s very encouraging.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Bayer, Janssen, Gilead, and others. Dr. Gewin and Dr. Mulay disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

LAS VEGAS – The delay in the diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) often ranges from 7 to 10 years, which results in increased morbidity and disease severity, and an extended impact on quality of life, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

For patients with HS, “the quality-of-life impact is profound, greater than any other systematically studied dermatologic condition,” said Dr. Micheletti, associate professor of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylavnia, and chief of hospital dermatology, and chief of dermatology at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia.

Two key aspects of quality of life that affect HS patients are sexual health and overall pain, he said. The female-to-male ratio of HS is approximately 3:1, and data show that approximately 40% of female HS patients experience fertility issues and have unaddressed questions about HS and pregnancy, said Dr. Micheletti. Additionally, data from a systematic review showed that 50%-60% of patients with HS reported sexual dysfunction. Impaired sexual function is also associated with both overall impaired quality of life ratings and the presence of mood disorders, he noted.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

Pain also has a significant impact on quality of life for HS patients. When these patients present in an emergency department, 70% report severe pain, and approximately 60% receive opioids, said Dr. Micheletti.

Data from a 2021 study showed that HS patients are significantly more likely to receive opioids compared with controls, and also more likely to be diagnosed with opioid use disorder than controls, especially if they are seen by nondermatologists, he noted.

For acute pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with acetaminophen 500 mg every 4 to 6 hours as needed, and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). “It still makes sense to do topical care,” said Dr. Micheletti, but he added that he also prescribes medications for anxiety for these patients.

Patients with increased pain severity or refractory disease may benefit from systemic NSAIDs, or intralesional triamcinolone, he noted. Incision and draining of abscesses may provide temporary symptomatic relief, but keep in mind that lesions will recur, he noted.

For the most severe cases, Dr. Micheletti advised adding tramadol as a first-line opioid, or another short-acting opioid for breakthrough pain.

To manage patients with HS who have chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with HS disease–directed therapy, but also screening for pain severity and psychological comorbidities.

His strategies in these cases include nonpharmacological pain management in the form of physical therapy, wound care, and behavioral health. His algorithm for nociceptive pain is NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen; duloxetine or nortriptyline are other options. For neuropathic pain, gabapentin and/or duloxetine are top choices, but pregabalin, venlafaxine, and nortriptyline are on the list as well.

Topical NSAIDs or topical lidocaine may serve as add-ons to systemic therapy in more severe cases, or as first-line therapy for milder chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti noted. Patients who have failed treatment with at least two pharmacologic agents, suffer medically refractory HS with debilitating pain, or use opioids on an ongoing basis should be referred to a pain management specialist, he said.
 

Don’t forget lifestyle

Although data on the impact of diet on patients with HS are limited, “we know anecdotally that dairy and refined carbohydrates are associated with exacerbations,” said Dr. Micheletti.

In addition, many patients use complementary medicine “and they aren’t always telling us,” he emphasized. Smoking is prevalent among patients with HS, and is a risk factor for the disease in general, and for more severe and refractory disease, he added. Consequently, screening for tobacco smoking is recommended for patients with HS not only because of the impact on disease, but because it is a potentially modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, he explained.
 

Consider comorbidities

Cardiovascular disease is among several comorbidities associated with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. HS foundations in the United States and Canada recently published evidence-based recommendations for comorbidity screening. The recommendations included screening for 19 specific comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, anxiety, suicide, smoking, substance abuse, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction.

Dr. Micheletti highlighted cardiovascular comorbidities, and noted the association between HS and modifiable cardiovascular risk factors: smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. “HS is also independently associated with cardiovascular disease leading to myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular-associated death, and all-cause mortality compared to controls,” he said. Studies show an incidence rate ratio of 1.53 for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with HS compared with controls, with the highest relative risk among those aged 18-29 years, he added.
 

Medical management

Depending on the patient, medical management of HS may involve antibiotics, hormonal agents, and biologics, said Dr. Micheletti. Some of the most commonly used antibiotic regimens for HS are those recommended in treatment guidelines, including doxycycline and a clindamycin/rifampin combination, he said. However, the use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin has been associated with increased antibiotic resistance and is not supported by available evidence, he noted.

Hormonal therapies may help some women with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. Options include spironolactone, metformin, or estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptives, he said.

When it comes to biologics, only 33% of HS patients meet criteria for their use (Hurley stage II or III, moderate or severe HS), he noted. However, research suggests “a huge gap” in the use of anti-TNF therapy even among patients for whom it is recommended, he said.

Of the TNF-alpha inhibitors, data on adalimumab, which is FDA-approved for HS, are the most recent. Adalimumab “is our gold standard biologic and our gateway biologic, for HS at this time,” Dr. Micheletti said.

However, those who respond to adalimumab “can continue to do better, but they can wax and wane and flare,” he cautioned. Infliximab, while not approved for HS, has been studied in patients with HS and is prescribed by some providers. Although no comparative studies have been done for infliximab versus adalimumab, “anecdotally, response to infliximab tends to be better, and it is the most effective biologic in common use for severe HS,” he noted.

Dr. Micheletti’s top treatment recommendations for using biologics start with considering biosimilars. Most patients on biosimilars do fine, but some patients who previously responded to infliximab will unpredictably lose efficacy or have reactions when switched to a biosimilar, he said.

Patients on biologics also may experience waning efficacy in the wake of an immune response stimulated by foreign antibodies, said Dr. Micheletti. “Anti-drug antibody formation is more likely to occur when treatment is interrupted,” he noted. Minimize the risk of antibody formation by paying attention to adherence issues and dosing frequency, he advised.

If patients fail both adalimumab and infliximab, Dr. Micheletti tells them not to lose hope, and that treatment is a trial-and-error process that may involve more than one therapy. Other biologics in active use for HS include ustekinumab, anakinra, secukinumab, brodalumab, golimumab, and JAK inhibitors, any of which might be effective in any given patient, he said.
 

Surgical solutions

For HS patients with chronic, recurring inflammation and drainage associated with a sinus tract, surgical deroofing may the best treatment option, Dr. Micheletti said. “Deroofing involves the use of a probe to trace the extent of the subcutaneous tract, followed by incision and removal of the tract ‘roof,’ ’’ he explained. The deroofing procedure involves local anesthesia and has a low morbidity rate, as well as a low recurrence rate and high levels of patient satisfaction, he said.

“The acute role for surgery is to remove active foci of inflammation and relieve pain,” which is achieved more effectively with deroofing, said Dr. Micheletti. By contrast, incision and drainage is associated with an almost 100% recurrence rate, he added.

When planning elective surgery for HS, Dr. Micheletti noted that holding infliximab for less than 4 weeks does not affect postoperative infection rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a recent randomized, controlled trial showed that adalimumab can be continued safely through HS surgeries.

In fact, “continuing TNF inhibitors through elective surgery does not increase infection risk and results in better disease control,” and dermatologists should work with surgery to balance infection and disease flare concerns in HS patients, he said.

Dr. Micheletti disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Adaptimmune and Vertex, and research funding from Amgen and Cabaletta Bio. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – The delay in the diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) often ranges from 7 to 10 years, which results in increased morbidity and disease severity, and an extended impact on quality of life, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

For patients with HS, “the quality-of-life impact is profound, greater than any other systematically studied dermatologic condition,” said Dr. Micheletti, associate professor of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylavnia, and chief of hospital dermatology, and chief of dermatology at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia.

Two key aspects of quality of life that affect HS patients are sexual health and overall pain, he said. The female-to-male ratio of HS is approximately 3:1, and data show that approximately 40% of female HS patients experience fertility issues and have unaddressed questions about HS and pregnancy, said Dr. Micheletti. Additionally, data from a systematic review showed that 50%-60% of patients with HS reported sexual dysfunction. Impaired sexual function is also associated with both overall impaired quality of life ratings and the presence of mood disorders, he noted.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

Pain also has a significant impact on quality of life for HS patients. When these patients present in an emergency department, 70% report severe pain, and approximately 60% receive opioids, said Dr. Micheletti.

Data from a 2021 study showed that HS patients are significantly more likely to receive opioids compared with controls, and also more likely to be diagnosed with opioid use disorder than controls, especially if they are seen by nondermatologists, he noted.

For acute pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with acetaminophen 500 mg every 4 to 6 hours as needed, and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). “It still makes sense to do topical care,” said Dr. Micheletti, but he added that he also prescribes medications for anxiety for these patients.

Patients with increased pain severity or refractory disease may benefit from systemic NSAIDs, or intralesional triamcinolone, he noted. Incision and draining of abscesses may provide temporary symptomatic relief, but keep in mind that lesions will recur, he noted.

For the most severe cases, Dr. Micheletti advised adding tramadol as a first-line opioid, or another short-acting opioid for breakthrough pain.

To manage patients with HS who have chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with HS disease–directed therapy, but also screening for pain severity and psychological comorbidities.

His strategies in these cases include nonpharmacological pain management in the form of physical therapy, wound care, and behavioral health. His algorithm for nociceptive pain is NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen; duloxetine or nortriptyline are other options. For neuropathic pain, gabapentin and/or duloxetine are top choices, but pregabalin, venlafaxine, and nortriptyline are on the list as well.

Topical NSAIDs or topical lidocaine may serve as add-ons to systemic therapy in more severe cases, or as first-line therapy for milder chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti noted. Patients who have failed treatment with at least two pharmacologic agents, suffer medically refractory HS with debilitating pain, or use opioids on an ongoing basis should be referred to a pain management specialist, he said.
 

Don’t forget lifestyle

Although data on the impact of diet on patients with HS are limited, “we know anecdotally that dairy and refined carbohydrates are associated with exacerbations,” said Dr. Micheletti.

In addition, many patients use complementary medicine “and they aren’t always telling us,” he emphasized. Smoking is prevalent among patients with HS, and is a risk factor for the disease in general, and for more severe and refractory disease, he added. Consequently, screening for tobacco smoking is recommended for patients with HS not only because of the impact on disease, but because it is a potentially modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, he explained.
 

Consider comorbidities

Cardiovascular disease is among several comorbidities associated with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. HS foundations in the United States and Canada recently published evidence-based recommendations for comorbidity screening. The recommendations included screening for 19 specific comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, anxiety, suicide, smoking, substance abuse, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction.

Dr. Micheletti highlighted cardiovascular comorbidities, and noted the association between HS and modifiable cardiovascular risk factors: smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. “HS is also independently associated with cardiovascular disease leading to myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular-associated death, and all-cause mortality compared to controls,” he said. Studies show an incidence rate ratio of 1.53 for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with HS compared with controls, with the highest relative risk among those aged 18-29 years, he added.
 

Medical management

Depending on the patient, medical management of HS may involve antibiotics, hormonal agents, and biologics, said Dr. Micheletti. Some of the most commonly used antibiotic regimens for HS are those recommended in treatment guidelines, including doxycycline and a clindamycin/rifampin combination, he said. However, the use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin has been associated with increased antibiotic resistance and is not supported by available evidence, he noted.

Hormonal therapies may help some women with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. Options include spironolactone, metformin, or estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptives, he said.

When it comes to biologics, only 33% of HS patients meet criteria for their use (Hurley stage II or III, moderate or severe HS), he noted. However, research suggests “a huge gap” in the use of anti-TNF therapy even among patients for whom it is recommended, he said.

Of the TNF-alpha inhibitors, data on adalimumab, which is FDA-approved for HS, are the most recent. Adalimumab “is our gold standard biologic and our gateway biologic, for HS at this time,” Dr. Micheletti said.

However, those who respond to adalimumab “can continue to do better, but they can wax and wane and flare,” he cautioned. Infliximab, while not approved for HS, has been studied in patients with HS and is prescribed by some providers. Although no comparative studies have been done for infliximab versus adalimumab, “anecdotally, response to infliximab tends to be better, and it is the most effective biologic in common use for severe HS,” he noted.

Dr. Micheletti’s top treatment recommendations for using biologics start with considering biosimilars. Most patients on biosimilars do fine, but some patients who previously responded to infliximab will unpredictably lose efficacy or have reactions when switched to a biosimilar, he said.

Patients on biologics also may experience waning efficacy in the wake of an immune response stimulated by foreign antibodies, said Dr. Micheletti. “Anti-drug antibody formation is more likely to occur when treatment is interrupted,” he noted. Minimize the risk of antibody formation by paying attention to adherence issues and dosing frequency, he advised.

If patients fail both adalimumab and infliximab, Dr. Micheletti tells them not to lose hope, and that treatment is a trial-and-error process that may involve more than one therapy. Other biologics in active use for HS include ustekinumab, anakinra, secukinumab, brodalumab, golimumab, and JAK inhibitors, any of which might be effective in any given patient, he said.
 

Surgical solutions

For HS patients with chronic, recurring inflammation and drainage associated with a sinus tract, surgical deroofing may the best treatment option, Dr. Micheletti said. “Deroofing involves the use of a probe to trace the extent of the subcutaneous tract, followed by incision and removal of the tract ‘roof,’ ’’ he explained. The deroofing procedure involves local anesthesia and has a low morbidity rate, as well as a low recurrence rate and high levels of patient satisfaction, he said.

“The acute role for surgery is to remove active foci of inflammation and relieve pain,” which is achieved more effectively with deroofing, said Dr. Micheletti. By contrast, incision and drainage is associated with an almost 100% recurrence rate, he added.

When planning elective surgery for HS, Dr. Micheletti noted that holding infliximab for less than 4 weeks does not affect postoperative infection rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a recent randomized, controlled trial showed that adalimumab can be continued safely through HS surgeries.

In fact, “continuing TNF inhibitors through elective surgery does not increase infection risk and results in better disease control,” and dermatologists should work with surgery to balance infection and disease flare concerns in HS patients, he said.

Dr. Micheletti disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Adaptimmune and Vertex, and research funding from Amgen and Cabaletta Bio. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – The delay in the diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) often ranges from 7 to 10 years, which results in increased morbidity and disease severity, and an extended impact on quality of life, Robert G. Micheletti, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

For patients with HS, “the quality-of-life impact is profound, greater than any other systematically studied dermatologic condition,” said Dr. Micheletti, associate professor of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylavnia, and chief of hospital dermatology, and chief of dermatology at Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia.

Two key aspects of quality of life that affect HS patients are sexual health and overall pain, he said. The female-to-male ratio of HS is approximately 3:1, and data show that approximately 40% of female HS patients experience fertility issues and have unaddressed questions about HS and pregnancy, said Dr. Micheletti. Additionally, data from a systematic review showed that 50%-60% of patients with HS reported sexual dysfunction. Impaired sexual function is also associated with both overall impaired quality of life ratings and the presence of mood disorders, he noted.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

Pain also has a significant impact on quality of life for HS patients. When these patients present in an emergency department, 70% report severe pain, and approximately 60% receive opioids, said Dr. Micheletti.

Data from a 2021 study showed that HS patients are significantly more likely to receive opioids compared with controls, and also more likely to be diagnosed with opioid use disorder than controls, especially if they are seen by nondermatologists, he noted.

For acute pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with acetaminophen 500 mg every 4 to 6 hours as needed, and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). “It still makes sense to do topical care,” said Dr. Micheletti, but he added that he also prescribes medications for anxiety for these patients.

Patients with increased pain severity or refractory disease may benefit from systemic NSAIDs, or intralesional triamcinolone, he noted. Incision and draining of abscesses may provide temporary symptomatic relief, but keep in mind that lesions will recur, he noted.

For the most severe cases, Dr. Micheletti advised adding tramadol as a first-line opioid, or another short-acting opioid for breakthrough pain.

To manage patients with HS who have chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti recommended starting with HS disease–directed therapy, but also screening for pain severity and psychological comorbidities.

His strategies in these cases include nonpharmacological pain management in the form of physical therapy, wound care, and behavioral health. His algorithm for nociceptive pain is NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen; duloxetine or nortriptyline are other options. For neuropathic pain, gabapentin and/or duloxetine are top choices, but pregabalin, venlafaxine, and nortriptyline are on the list as well.

Topical NSAIDs or topical lidocaine may serve as add-ons to systemic therapy in more severe cases, or as first-line therapy for milder chronic pain, Dr. Micheletti noted. Patients who have failed treatment with at least two pharmacologic agents, suffer medically refractory HS with debilitating pain, or use opioids on an ongoing basis should be referred to a pain management specialist, he said.
 

Don’t forget lifestyle

Although data on the impact of diet on patients with HS are limited, “we know anecdotally that dairy and refined carbohydrates are associated with exacerbations,” said Dr. Micheletti.

In addition, many patients use complementary medicine “and they aren’t always telling us,” he emphasized. Smoking is prevalent among patients with HS, and is a risk factor for the disease in general, and for more severe and refractory disease, he added. Consequently, screening for tobacco smoking is recommended for patients with HS not only because of the impact on disease, but because it is a potentially modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, he explained.
 

Consider comorbidities

Cardiovascular disease is among several comorbidities associated with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. HS foundations in the United States and Canada recently published evidence-based recommendations for comorbidity screening. The recommendations included screening for 19 specific comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, anxiety, suicide, smoking, substance abuse, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction.

Dr. Micheletti highlighted cardiovascular comorbidities, and noted the association between HS and modifiable cardiovascular risk factors: smoking, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia. “HS is also independently associated with cardiovascular disease leading to myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular-associated death, and all-cause mortality compared to controls,” he said. Studies show an incidence rate ratio of 1.53 for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with HS compared with controls, with the highest relative risk among those aged 18-29 years, he added.
 

Medical management

Depending on the patient, medical management of HS may involve antibiotics, hormonal agents, and biologics, said Dr. Micheletti. Some of the most commonly used antibiotic regimens for HS are those recommended in treatment guidelines, including doxycycline and a clindamycin/rifampin combination, he said. However, the use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin has been associated with increased antibiotic resistance and is not supported by available evidence, he noted.

Hormonal therapies may help some women with HS, said Dr. Micheletti. Options include spironolactone, metformin, or estrogen-containing hormonal contraceptives, he said.

When it comes to biologics, only 33% of HS patients meet criteria for their use (Hurley stage II or III, moderate or severe HS), he noted. However, research suggests “a huge gap” in the use of anti-TNF therapy even among patients for whom it is recommended, he said.

Of the TNF-alpha inhibitors, data on adalimumab, which is FDA-approved for HS, are the most recent. Adalimumab “is our gold standard biologic and our gateway biologic, for HS at this time,” Dr. Micheletti said.

However, those who respond to adalimumab “can continue to do better, but they can wax and wane and flare,” he cautioned. Infliximab, while not approved for HS, has been studied in patients with HS and is prescribed by some providers. Although no comparative studies have been done for infliximab versus adalimumab, “anecdotally, response to infliximab tends to be better, and it is the most effective biologic in common use for severe HS,” he noted.

Dr. Micheletti’s top treatment recommendations for using biologics start with considering biosimilars. Most patients on biosimilars do fine, but some patients who previously responded to infliximab will unpredictably lose efficacy or have reactions when switched to a biosimilar, he said.

Patients on biologics also may experience waning efficacy in the wake of an immune response stimulated by foreign antibodies, said Dr. Micheletti. “Anti-drug antibody formation is more likely to occur when treatment is interrupted,” he noted. Minimize the risk of antibody formation by paying attention to adherence issues and dosing frequency, he advised.

If patients fail both adalimumab and infliximab, Dr. Micheletti tells them not to lose hope, and that treatment is a trial-and-error process that may involve more than one therapy. Other biologics in active use for HS include ustekinumab, anakinra, secukinumab, brodalumab, golimumab, and JAK inhibitors, any of which might be effective in any given patient, he said.
 

Surgical solutions

For HS patients with chronic, recurring inflammation and drainage associated with a sinus tract, surgical deroofing may the best treatment option, Dr. Micheletti said. “Deroofing involves the use of a probe to trace the extent of the subcutaneous tract, followed by incision and removal of the tract ‘roof,’ ’’ he explained. The deroofing procedure involves local anesthesia and has a low morbidity rate, as well as a low recurrence rate and high levels of patient satisfaction, he said.

“The acute role for surgery is to remove active foci of inflammation and relieve pain,” which is achieved more effectively with deroofing, said Dr. Micheletti. By contrast, incision and drainage is associated with an almost 100% recurrence rate, he added.

When planning elective surgery for HS, Dr. Micheletti noted that holding infliximab for less than 4 weeks does not affect postoperative infection rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a recent randomized, controlled trial showed that adalimumab can be continued safely through HS surgeries.

In fact, “continuing TNF inhibitors through elective surgery does not increase infection risk and results in better disease control,” and dermatologists should work with surgery to balance infection and disease flare concerns in HS patients, he said.

Dr. Micheletti disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Adaptimmune and Vertex, and research funding from Amgen and Cabaletta Bio. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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

Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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

Rebecca Chester, MD, an Arizona-based interventional cardiologist, recently left her position in a private practice and started employment at a hospital system.

“When I was negotiating my previous contract with the private practice, I found that navigating contracts from the standpoint of a woman still in childbearing years was a little disappointing and challenging,” Dr. Chester told this news organization.

“I wanted to have more children and hired a lawyer recommended by a male colleague to help me not only understand the contract but also negotiate time off and maternity leave, but the lawyer discouraged me from advocating for maternity leave, feeling that it might stigmatize me and prevent me from getting a job,” she says.

He also didn’t explain very much. “He just said it falls under ‘disability leave’ and left it at that.”

Fortunately, Dr. Chester had a good experience with the group. “As things turned out, I did have a child later that year, and they treated me well – I actually got time off – and they didn’t make me take extra call. But it might have turned out very differently because I didn’t know what I was getting into. If I hadn’t worked for such a conscientious group, I might have been in a much tougher situation.”

Since then, Dr. Chester has spoken to female colleagues who received “more support from their legal advisors regarding maternity leave.” She suggests turning to female physicians for recommendations to a lawyer.

Although the central components of a contract (for example, noncompete covenants, malpractice “tail” coverage, bonus structure, vacation time, disability, and call) are relevant to physicians of all genders, the needs of women and men are often different.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, told this news organization that women physicians have “several issues that need special attention when negotiating their physician employment agreements.”
 

It starts with the interview

“Women have to be sensitive to the interviewer’s casual ‘let’s-get-to-know-each-other’ types of questions that may seem natural but really are unlawful to bring into an employment interview,” said Mr. Hursh.

He warned women to beware of questions such as “Are you married? Do you have kids? Are you planning to start a family?” These may be friendly chit-chat for male interviewees but there may be other agendas when asked to a prospective female employee.

Many of Mr. Hursh’s female clients have been asked this type of question, which “should be regarded as a ‘red flag.’ Yes, it may be an innocent, well-intentioned ice-breaker, but it’s actually unlawful to bring that up in an employment setting and, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, can be seen as a form of discrimination.” He advises female physicians not to engage with the question and simply to refocus the discussion.
 

Know your worth and go for it

Medscape’s Physician Compensation surveys have consistently found discrepancies in earnings between male and female physicians, both in primary care and in specialties. In 2022, male primary care physicians earned 23% more than their female counterparts, whereas male specialists earned 31% more.

One reason may be that women tend to be more timid about negotiating for better compensation packages. Amanda Hill of Hill Health Law, a health care practice based in Austin, Tex., told this news organization that in her experience one of the most “overarching” features of female physicians is “that they either don’t know what they’re worth or they undersell themselves.”

In contrast to men, “many women are afraid of coming across as greedy or crass, or even demanding or bossy. But it’s a misperception that if you ask for more money, your future employer will hate you or won’t hire you,” said Ms. Hill.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Hursh encourage physicians to find out what they’re worth, which varies by region and specialty, by consulting benchmarks provided by companies such as Medical Group Management Association.

Jon Appino, MBA, principal and founder of Contract Diagnostics, a Kansas City–based consulting company that specializes in physician employment contract reviews, told this news organization that it’s important to look beyond the salary at other aspects of the position. For example, some figures “don’t take into account how much call a physician is taking. You may know what the average ob.gyn. is making, but an ob.gyn. may be working 3 days a week, while another one is working 6 days a week, one may be on call 15 times per month and another may be on call 15 times a quarter.” Other components of compensation include relative value unit (RVU) thresholds and bonuses.

Once you have that information, “don’t be intimidated, even if you’re sitting in front of several executives who are savvy about negotiations, and don’t worry about coming across as ‘high-maintenance’ or ‘all about money,’ ” Mr. Appino says. Proceed with confidence, knowing your worth and pursuing it.
 

Part-time vs. full-time

Mr. Appino has seen “more female than male physicians who want to work less than full-time. So it’s important to clarify whether that’s a possibility now or in the future and to understand the implications of working part-time.”

He explained that a full-time employee typically puts in a 40-hour work week, which translates into 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), or one unit of work. “For example, if a person wants to work 0.8 FTEs – 4 days a week – is vacation time pro-rated? At what point is there a medical insurance fall-off or a higher monthly premium?”

In medical settings, FTEs may be tied to different metrics rather than the number of weekly hours – for example, for a hospitalist, it might be a certain number of shifts and might also vary by specialty. And it affects the call schedule too. “Call is hard to pro-rate. Many hospital bylaws mandate that call be divided equally, but if one surgeon is working 1.0 FTEs and another is working 0.8 FTEs, how does that call schedule get divided?”
 

Maternity leave: A tricky question

Many attorneys counsel against raising the question out of fear of scaring away potential employers.

“On the one hand, it is and should be absolutely reasonable to ask about the maternity leave policy or even negotiate for paid leave or additional leave, but it also highlights that you’re planning to have a baby and be out for months,” said Ms. Hill.

“And as much as we want people to be fair and reasonable, on the side of the employer, bias still very much exists, especially in a situation where revenue is based on group numbers. So suddenly, the employer thinks up some ‘nondiscriminatory’ reason why that person isn’t a great fit for the organization.”

Andrew Knoll, MD, JD, a former hospitalist who is now a partner with Cohen Compagni Beckman Appler & Knoll PLLC in Syracuse, N.Y., said that maternity leave is “rare” in an employment agreement, except sometimes in small private practice groups, because it often falls under the purview of “disability leave,” and “from a legal perspective, it’s no different than any other type of disability leave.”

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies if a group is large enough, allows employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, during which time their job is protected and their benefits maintained. And some states require employers to offer paid family leave.

“During this time, the woman can take time off – albeit without pay sometimes – to bond with the baby,” Dr. Knoll says. “Since there are statutory laws that protect the employee’s job, offering specific paid maternity leave is very unlikely.”

Ms. Hill advises carefully examining the employer’s comprehensive benefits plan to ascertain if paid maternity leave is included in the benefits. “But unless you’re currently pregnant and want to start off the relationship with true transparency – ‘I’m due in April and curious how we can handle that if you hire me now’ – I would keep the family planning questions to yourself before you get the job.”

Mr. Hursh, author of “The Final Hurdle: A Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement” (Charleston, S.C.: Advantage, 2012), has a different perspective. “I think all women, no matter how old they are, should ask about maternity leave, whether or not they’re planning a family,” he said.

“The employer may say, ‘We treat maternity leave like any other disability; our policy is such-and-such.’ If they cite an unacceptable policy, it’s a red flag about how they treat women, and should give a woman pause before accepting a position at that organization. Even if your rights are protected under the law and the organization’s policy is violating the law, no one wants to go to battle with HR or to have to go to court.”
 

Do you want partnership?

Not all female physicians entering a private practice want to advance to becoming partners. Many who are balancing family and work commitments “would prefer to just go into the office, perform their clinical responsibilities, go home, and be done” without the extra headaches, tasks, and time involved with business leadership, says Mr. Appino.

Some private practices have different contracts for those on partnership vs. nonpartnership tracks, so “you should ascertain this information and make sure it’s not automatically assumed that you would like to be on a partnership track,” says Mr. Appino.

On the other hand, you may want to become a partner. “I always suggest asking about the possibility of obtaining a leadership position in an organization or becoming an owner in a private practice,” says Mr. Hursh. “You may be told, ‘We’ve never had a woman in leadership before.’ This might be innocent if you’re the first woman hired, but it might be a red flag as to how women are regarded.” Either way, it’s important to have the information and know what your options are.
 

The impact of shift schedule

Mr. Hursh advises drilling down into the specifics of the schedule if you’re considering becoming a hospitalist. “Does a ‘week-on/week-off’ shift schedule assume you’ll be taking your vacation time or completing your CME requirements during the week off? This is important for all physicians, but especially for women who might want to use their weeks off to attend to children and family.”

Moreover, “there should be limits on shifts. You shouldn’t have a full day shift followed by a night shift. And there should be a limit on the number of shifts you work without time off. Twelve would be a brutal schedule. Seven is a reasonable amount. Make sure this is in writing and that the contract protects you. Don’t allow the employer to say, ‘We expect you to do the work we assign’ and leave it vague.”

Often, hospitalists will receive an annual salary under the assumption that a certain minimum number of shifts will be completed, but there is no maximum. “It’s important that the salary includes the minimum number of shifts, but that a compensation structure is created so that additional shifts receive additional compensation,” Mr. Hursh said.
 

Removing the ‘golden handcuffs’

Ms. Hill observes that there are some “really terrible contracts out there, which physicians – especially women – often feel pressured into signing.” They’re told, “This is our standard contract. You won’t find anything better.” Or, “Don’t worry about the small print and legalese.” The physician “gets scared or is artificially reassured, signs an overwhelmingly unfair contract, and then feels stuck.”

Being stuck in a bad contract “is debilitating and adds to burnout, feeling of depression, and the sense that there is no recourse and nowhere to go, especially if your family depends on you,” Ms. Hill said.

“More women than men feel hamstrung or are resigned to being harassed – which is not uncommon in the medical setting, especially in surgical specialties – or just accept poor treatment,” Ms. Hill added. Yes, you can “fight the system and go to HR, but fighting the system is very hard.”

She urges women “not to feel stuck or imprisoned by the ‘golden handcuffs’ but to consult a good lawyer, even if you have to break the contract.” Be aware of the reasons for your unhappiness and bring them to your lawyer – perhaps the system has engaged in fraud, perhaps there has been sexual or racial harassment, perhaps the organization hasn’t followed its own compliance policies.

Dr. Chester consulted Ms. Hill before signing the contract for her current position. “I wanted someone who could give me personalized advice, not only generic advice, and who understood my needs as a woman.”

Ms. Hill helped her to understand “what was and wasn’t fair and reasonable, what changes I could request based on my goals and whether they were realistic, and how to pick my battles. For example, I tried to negotiate tail coverage up front in my previous job but was unsuccessful. The new employer paid tail for me, both from my previous employment and for my current employment.”

Dr. Chester advises other female physicians “never to sign anything without having a lawyer review it and to make sure that the lawyer is sensitive to their specific needs.”

It can be hard to be a female physician. Having the right knowledge and ammunition and knowing how to negotiate well paves the way for success and thriving in an often male-dominated market.

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