Clinical Endocrinology News

With ever-expanding treatment options for the ablation of benign thyroid nodules, the American Thyroid Association has issued an expert consensus statement that addresses the safe implementation and utilization of the techniques.

“There are no documents to date in the United States focusing primarily on the safe adoption and implementation of ablation techniques, including learning curve considerations and necessary pre-procedural skillsets,” reports the ATA task force in the consensus statement, which was published in Thyroid.

“Although these emerging technologies hold great promise, they are not without risk and require development of a unique skill set and environment for optimal, safe performance and consistent outcomes,” task force co-author Catherine F. Sinclair, MD, an associate professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Chemical ablation has long been utilized as a nonsurgical option for benign thyroid nodule ablation. However, the current array of treatment options has expanded with thermal ablation. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser ablation, microwave ablation, and high-intensity focused ultrasound have gained favor as minimally invasive alternatives to surgery.

Much has been published on indications and outcomes with the use of the techniques. The multidisciplinary global task force was convened to address key issues regarding safety and utilization. The report is directed toward specialists, including surgeons, endocrinologists, and interventional radiologists.

The recommendations cover three broad categories: safety considerations spanning preprocedural to postprocedural periods; necessary skill sets for optimal, safe performance with the approaches; and the expectations for success in the context of risks and benefits.
 

Ablation methods can depend on nodule type

Among key issues addressed are which ablation methods are most appropriate for which types of nodules. Recommendations include chemical ablation, typically involving the injection of dehydrated ethanol in a target nodule. In solid nodules, diffusion with chemical ablation can be unpredictable, which makes it more appropriate for cystic nodules.

Thermal ablation is considered best suited for patients with compressive and/or cosmetic complaints that clearly involve a single or dominant nodule, as well as for autonomously functioning thyroid nodules that cause subclinical or overt hyperthyroidism.

While ethanol ablation is recommended as a first-line treatment for benign cystic thyroid nodules, its efficacy decreases when there is an increase of more than 20% of the solid component. In such cases, RFA or a combination of ethanol ablation and RFA may be considered, the task force recommends.
 

Patient counseling – managing expectations

Another key consideration in treatment with thyroid nodule ablation is managing patients’ expectations.

Patients should be advised of benefits, such as the avoidance of surgery and general anesthesia and less recovery time. Risks can include thermal or chemical injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve and other vital structures. The task force underscores discussion of alternative options with patients.

Alternative management options to ablation, including observation, radioactive iodine for functioning nodules, and surgery should also be discussed, and “their relative advantages and disadvantages should be presented without bias such that the patient can make an informed, individual treatment decision,” the task force recommends.

Patients should be informed that, in contrast to surgical management, the benefits of ablation are not immediate; rather, they accrue over the course of months. Reduction in nodule size within the first month is often limited.

Pain, soreness, and some swelling of the nodule and surrounding tissues are common in the first week. These symptoms usually peak in the first 3-5 days after the procedure. Importantly, patients rarely require opioid medications, and their use should be avoided, the task force recommends.

Patients should also be informed about the possibilities of nodule regrowth following ablation and the possible need for more than one ablation procedure.

“Although regrowth definitions in the literature vary, risk of regrowth after thermal ablation is 5%-40% and increases the larger the baseline nodule volume,” the task force notes.

Of note, most studies on ablation to date have shown that thermal ablation complication rates are low. Twelve months post procedure, volume reductions are typically greater than 50%.
 

Follow-up

For long-term monitoring following ablation, follow-up neck ultrasound is typically recommended at 1-3 months and at 6 and 12 months post ablation to assess volume reduction, nodule appearance, nodule vascularity, and areas at risk for regrowth, the authors note.

Prolonged serial biochemical evaluation of thyroid function is only recommended in cases of hyperfunctioning thyroid nodules.

Key considerations for additional ablative sessions for nodules greater than 20-30 mL in volume should include a failure to achieve adequate reduction in volume, nodule regrowth in previously untreated peripheral areas, and/or persistent or new compressive symptoms.
 

Learning curve

Dr. Sinclair underscored that successful thyroid nodule ablation requires skill – and experience.

“Probably the greatest concern shared by the writing group on this statement was the potential for clinicians to start ablation practices without having an appropriate prior skill set,” she said.

“Ablation is an advanced, ultrasound-guided procedure, and clinicians need to be experienced in performing neck ultrasounds and biopsies,” she added. “To consider performing ablations without this skill set is both unrealistic and dangerous.”

RFA, currently the most commonly used thermal ablation method for benign thyroid nodule ablation in the U.S., “has a good safety profile but can have a steep learning curve initially,” she said.

Among the most important recommendations is that for their first 20-60 ablation procedures, clinicians should consider limiting treatment to small- to medium-sized benign nodules rather than large-volume disease, Dr. Sinclair added.

“In addition, prior to starting thyroid ablation practices, clinicians should be proficient in ultrasound imaging and fine-needle biopsies and can gain valuable experience by practicing on phantoms and having expert proctoring for the first few cases,” she said.

For initial ablative cases, the task force recommends that clinicians select moderate-size (< 20-30 mL), nonvascular nodules with favorable characteristics and location. The final volume reduction should be based not only on baseline nodule characteristics, such as volume and vascularity, but also on the practitioner’s skill.

Clinicians furthermore should be board certified or eligible in an appropriate medical specialty, have extensive background knowledge, and “should have clinical experience in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules; neck imaging anatomy; thyroid ultrasound imaging and fine needle aspiration biopsy procedures; and ultrasound risk stratification for benign and malignant thyroid tumors,” the group recommends.

Importantly, the statement is designed to reflect a consensus opinion of the panel of experts but is not meant to serve as a formal guideline or a standard of care for the clinical practice of thermal ablation, Dr. Sinclair added.

“It is not the intent of the statement to replace individual decision-making, the wishes of the patient or family, or clinical judgment.”

The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published report.

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

With ever-expanding treatment options for the ablation of benign thyroid nodules, the American Thyroid Association has issued an expert consensus statement that addresses the safe implementation and utilization of the techniques.

“There are no documents to date in the United States focusing primarily on the safe adoption and implementation of ablation techniques, including learning curve considerations and necessary pre-procedural skillsets,” reports the ATA task force in the consensus statement, which was published in Thyroid.

“Although these emerging technologies hold great promise, they are not without risk and require development of a unique skill set and environment for optimal, safe performance and consistent outcomes,” task force co-author Catherine F. Sinclair, MD, an associate professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Chemical ablation has long been utilized as a nonsurgical option for benign thyroid nodule ablation. However, the current array of treatment options has expanded with thermal ablation. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser ablation, microwave ablation, and high-intensity focused ultrasound have gained favor as minimally invasive alternatives to surgery.

Much has been published on indications and outcomes with the use of the techniques. The multidisciplinary global task force was convened to address key issues regarding safety and utilization. The report is directed toward specialists, including surgeons, endocrinologists, and interventional radiologists.

The recommendations cover three broad categories: safety considerations spanning preprocedural to postprocedural periods; necessary skill sets for optimal, safe performance with the approaches; and the expectations for success in the context of risks and benefits.
 

Ablation methods can depend on nodule type

Among key issues addressed are which ablation methods are most appropriate for which types of nodules. Recommendations include chemical ablation, typically involving the injection of dehydrated ethanol in a target nodule. In solid nodules, diffusion with chemical ablation can be unpredictable, which makes it more appropriate for cystic nodules.

Thermal ablation is considered best suited for patients with compressive and/or cosmetic complaints that clearly involve a single or dominant nodule, as well as for autonomously functioning thyroid nodules that cause subclinical or overt hyperthyroidism.

While ethanol ablation is recommended as a first-line treatment for benign cystic thyroid nodules, its efficacy decreases when there is an increase of more than 20% of the solid component. In such cases, RFA or a combination of ethanol ablation and RFA may be considered, the task force recommends.
 

Patient counseling – managing expectations

Another key consideration in treatment with thyroid nodule ablation is managing patients’ expectations.

Patients should be advised of benefits, such as the avoidance of surgery and general anesthesia and less recovery time. Risks can include thermal or chemical injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve and other vital structures. The task force underscores discussion of alternative options with patients.

Alternative management options to ablation, including observation, radioactive iodine for functioning nodules, and surgery should also be discussed, and “their relative advantages and disadvantages should be presented without bias such that the patient can make an informed, individual treatment decision,” the task force recommends.

Patients should be informed that, in contrast to surgical management, the benefits of ablation are not immediate; rather, they accrue over the course of months. Reduction in nodule size within the first month is often limited.

Pain, soreness, and some swelling of the nodule and surrounding tissues are common in the first week. These symptoms usually peak in the first 3-5 days after the procedure. Importantly, patients rarely require opioid medications, and their use should be avoided, the task force recommends.

Patients should also be informed about the possibilities of nodule regrowth following ablation and the possible need for more than one ablation procedure.

“Although regrowth definitions in the literature vary, risk of regrowth after thermal ablation is 5%-40% and increases the larger the baseline nodule volume,” the task force notes.

Of note, most studies on ablation to date have shown that thermal ablation complication rates are low. Twelve months post procedure, volume reductions are typically greater than 50%.
 

Follow-up

For long-term monitoring following ablation, follow-up neck ultrasound is typically recommended at 1-3 months and at 6 and 12 months post ablation to assess volume reduction, nodule appearance, nodule vascularity, and areas at risk for regrowth, the authors note.

Prolonged serial biochemical evaluation of thyroid function is only recommended in cases of hyperfunctioning thyroid nodules.

Key considerations for additional ablative sessions for nodules greater than 20-30 mL in volume should include a failure to achieve adequate reduction in volume, nodule regrowth in previously untreated peripheral areas, and/or persistent or new compressive symptoms.
 

Learning curve

Dr. Sinclair underscored that successful thyroid nodule ablation requires skill – and experience.

“Probably the greatest concern shared by the writing group on this statement was the potential for clinicians to start ablation practices without having an appropriate prior skill set,” she said.

“Ablation is an advanced, ultrasound-guided procedure, and clinicians need to be experienced in performing neck ultrasounds and biopsies,” she added. “To consider performing ablations without this skill set is both unrealistic and dangerous.”

RFA, currently the most commonly used thermal ablation method for benign thyroid nodule ablation in the U.S., “has a good safety profile but can have a steep learning curve initially,” she said.

Among the most important recommendations is that for their first 20-60 ablation procedures, clinicians should consider limiting treatment to small- to medium-sized benign nodules rather than large-volume disease, Dr. Sinclair added.

“In addition, prior to starting thyroid ablation practices, clinicians should be proficient in ultrasound imaging and fine-needle biopsies and can gain valuable experience by practicing on phantoms and having expert proctoring for the first few cases,” she said.

For initial ablative cases, the task force recommends that clinicians select moderate-size (< 20-30 mL), nonvascular nodules with favorable characteristics and location. The final volume reduction should be based not only on baseline nodule characteristics, such as volume and vascularity, but also on the practitioner’s skill.

Clinicians furthermore should be board certified or eligible in an appropriate medical specialty, have extensive background knowledge, and “should have clinical experience in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules; neck imaging anatomy; thyroid ultrasound imaging and fine needle aspiration biopsy procedures; and ultrasound risk stratification for benign and malignant thyroid tumors,” the group recommends.

Importantly, the statement is designed to reflect a consensus opinion of the panel of experts but is not meant to serve as a formal guideline or a standard of care for the clinical practice of thermal ablation, Dr. Sinclair added.

“It is not the intent of the statement to replace individual decision-making, the wishes of the patient or family, or clinical judgment.”

The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published report.

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

With ever-expanding treatment options for the ablation of benign thyroid nodules, the American Thyroid Association has issued an expert consensus statement that addresses the safe implementation and utilization of the techniques.

“There are no documents to date in the United States focusing primarily on the safe adoption and implementation of ablation techniques, including learning curve considerations and necessary pre-procedural skillsets,” reports the ATA task force in the consensus statement, which was published in Thyroid.

“Although these emerging technologies hold great promise, they are not without risk and require development of a unique skill set and environment for optimal, safe performance and consistent outcomes,” task force co-author Catherine F. Sinclair, MD, an associate professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Chemical ablation has long been utilized as a nonsurgical option for benign thyroid nodule ablation. However, the current array of treatment options has expanded with thermal ablation. Techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), laser ablation, microwave ablation, and high-intensity focused ultrasound have gained favor as minimally invasive alternatives to surgery.

Much has been published on indications and outcomes with the use of the techniques. The multidisciplinary global task force was convened to address key issues regarding safety and utilization. The report is directed toward specialists, including surgeons, endocrinologists, and interventional radiologists.

The recommendations cover three broad categories: safety considerations spanning preprocedural to postprocedural periods; necessary skill sets for optimal, safe performance with the approaches; and the expectations for success in the context of risks and benefits.
 

Ablation methods can depend on nodule type

Among key issues addressed are which ablation methods are most appropriate for which types of nodules. Recommendations include chemical ablation, typically involving the injection of dehydrated ethanol in a target nodule. In solid nodules, diffusion with chemical ablation can be unpredictable, which makes it more appropriate for cystic nodules.

Thermal ablation is considered best suited for patients with compressive and/or cosmetic complaints that clearly involve a single or dominant nodule, as well as for autonomously functioning thyroid nodules that cause subclinical or overt hyperthyroidism.

While ethanol ablation is recommended as a first-line treatment for benign cystic thyroid nodules, its efficacy decreases when there is an increase of more than 20% of the solid component. In such cases, RFA or a combination of ethanol ablation and RFA may be considered, the task force recommends.
 

Patient counseling – managing expectations

Another key consideration in treatment with thyroid nodule ablation is managing patients’ expectations.

Patients should be advised of benefits, such as the avoidance of surgery and general anesthesia and less recovery time. Risks can include thermal or chemical injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve and other vital structures. The task force underscores discussion of alternative options with patients.

Alternative management options to ablation, including observation, radioactive iodine for functioning nodules, and surgery should also be discussed, and “their relative advantages and disadvantages should be presented without bias such that the patient can make an informed, individual treatment decision,” the task force recommends.

Patients should be informed that, in contrast to surgical management, the benefits of ablation are not immediate; rather, they accrue over the course of months. Reduction in nodule size within the first month is often limited.

Pain, soreness, and some swelling of the nodule and surrounding tissues are common in the first week. These symptoms usually peak in the first 3-5 days after the procedure. Importantly, patients rarely require opioid medications, and their use should be avoided, the task force recommends.

Patients should also be informed about the possibilities of nodule regrowth following ablation and the possible need for more than one ablation procedure.

“Although regrowth definitions in the literature vary, risk of regrowth after thermal ablation is 5%-40% and increases the larger the baseline nodule volume,” the task force notes.

Of note, most studies on ablation to date have shown that thermal ablation complication rates are low. Twelve months post procedure, volume reductions are typically greater than 50%.
 

Follow-up

For long-term monitoring following ablation, follow-up neck ultrasound is typically recommended at 1-3 months and at 6 and 12 months post ablation to assess volume reduction, nodule appearance, nodule vascularity, and areas at risk for regrowth, the authors note.

Prolonged serial biochemical evaluation of thyroid function is only recommended in cases of hyperfunctioning thyroid nodules.

Key considerations for additional ablative sessions for nodules greater than 20-30 mL in volume should include a failure to achieve adequate reduction in volume, nodule regrowth in previously untreated peripheral areas, and/or persistent or new compressive symptoms.
 

Learning curve

Dr. Sinclair underscored that successful thyroid nodule ablation requires skill – and experience.

“Probably the greatest concern shared by the writing group on this statement was the potential for clinicians to start ablation practices without having an appropriate prior skill set,” she said.

“Ablation is an advanced, ultrasound-guided procedure, and clinicians need to be experienced in performing neck ultrasounds and biopsies,” she added. “To consider performing ablations without this skill set is both unrealistic and dangerous.”

RFA, currently the most commonly used thermal ablation method for benign thyroid nodule ablation in the U.S., “has a good safety profile but can have a steep learning curve initially,” she said.

Among the most important recommendations is that for their first 20-60 ablation procedures, clinicians should consider limiting treatment to small- to medium-sized benign nodules rather than large-volume disease, Dr. Sinclair added.

“In addition, prior to starting thyroid ablation practices, clinicians should be proficient in ultrasound imaging and fine-needle biopsies and can gain valuable experience by practicing on phantoms and having expert proctoring for the first few cases,” she said.

For initial ablative cases, the task force recommends that clinicians select moderate-size (< 20-30 mL), nonvascular nodules with favorable characteristics and location. The final volume reduction should be based not only on baseline nodule characteristics, such as volume and vascularity, but also on the practitioner’s skill.

Clinicians furthermore should be board certified or eligible in an appropriate medical specialty, have extensive background knowledge, and “should have clinical experience in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules; neck imaging anatomy; thyroid ultrasound imaging and fine needle aspiration biopsy procedures; and ultrasound risk stratification for benign and malignant thyroid tumors,” the group recommends.

Importantly, the statement is designed to reflect a consensus opinion of the panel of experts but is not meant to serve as a formal guideline or a standard of care for the clinical practice of thermal ablation, Dr. Sinclair added.

“It is not the intent of the statement to replace individual decision-making, the wishes of the patient or family, or clinical judgment.”

The authors’ disclosures are detailed in the published report.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am a healthy 43-year old man. Nevertheless, I am interested in getting my vitamin D level checked. My primary care doc says it’s unnecessary, but that doesn’t matter because a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies will do it without a doctor’s prescription – for a fee of course.

Is that okay? Should I be able to get the test?

What if instead of my vitamin D level, I want to test my testosterone level, or my PSA, or my cadmium level, or my Lyme disease antibodies, or even have a full-body MRI scan? All of these tests are available from a variety of direct-to-consumer testing companies. If I am willing to pay, should I be able to get those too?

These questions are becoming more and more common, because the direct-to-consumer testing market is exploding.

We’re talking about direct-to-consumer testing, thanks to this paper: Policies of US Companies Offering Direct-to-Consumer Laboratory Tests, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which characterizes the testing practices of direct-to-consumer testing companies.

But before we get to the study, a word on this market. Direct-to-consumer lab testing is projected to be a $2 billion industry by 2025, and lab testing megacorporations Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp are both jumping headlong into this space.

Why is this happening? A couple of reasons, I think. First, the increasing cost of health care has led payers to place significant restrictions on what tests can be ordered and under what circumstances. Physicians are all too familiar with the “prior authorization” system that seeks to limit even the tests we think would benefit our patients.

Frustrated with such a system, it’s no wonder that patients are increasingly deciding to go it on their own. Sure, insurance won’t cover these tests, but the prices are transparent and competition actually keeps them somewhat reasonable. So, is this a win-win? Shouldn’t we allow people to get the tests they want, at least if they are willing to pay for it?

Of course, it’s not quite that simple. If the tests are normal, or negative, then sure – no harm, no foul. But when they are positive, everything changes. What happens when the PSA test I got myself via a direct-to-consumer testing company comes back elevated? Well, at that point, I am right back into the traditional mode of medicine – seeing my doctor, probably getting repeat testing, biopsies, etc., – and some payer will be on the hook for that, which is to say that all of us will be on the hook for that.

One other reason direct-to-consumer testing is getting more popular is a more difficult-to-characterize phenomenon which I might call postpandemic individualism. I’ve seen this across several domains, but I think in some ways the pandemic led people to focus more attention on themselves, perhaps because we were so isolated from each other. Optimizing health through data – whether using a fitness tracking watch, meticulously counting macronutrient intake, or ordering your own lab tests – may be a form of exerting control over a universe that feels increasingly chaotic. But what do I know? I’m not a psychologist.

The study characterizes a total of 21 direct-to-consumer testing companies. They offer a variety of services, as you can see here, with the majority in the endocrine space: thyroid, diabetes, men’s and women’s health. A smattering of companies offer more esoteric testing, such as heavy metals and Lyme disease.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 1 diabetes who received transplanted islets along with a kidney transplant had significantly reduced mortality and transplant failure risks, compared with those who received kidney alone and continued to use insulin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was all patients with type 1 diabetes in France who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2017.
• Among 2,393 patients, 327 were eligible for islet transplantation, including 47 who were actually transplanted with islets.
• The subjects were matched for factors including year of transplantation, recipient age, kidney function, and hemoglobin A1c.

TAKEAWAY:

• Those receiving islets along with the kidney transplant had a 53% lower risk of graft failure, compared with the kidney-alone group.
• Those receiving islet transplantation had a significantly higher estimated life expectancy during 10-year follow-up (9.61 vs. 8.85 years).
• At 1 year post islet transplant, there was an estimated 89.4% probability of graft survival and a 70.2% probability of achieving independence from insulin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although islet transplantation has previously been shown to improve glycemic control, compared with conventional insulin therapy in recent clinical trials, little was known about its long-term impact on patient prognosis until now. ... These results are exciting and provide hope for people living with type 1 diabetes and kidney transplants.”

SOURCE:

Presented Sept. 17, 2023, at the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Congress 2023 by Mehdi Maanaoui, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Lille (France).

LIMITATIONS:

Observational, potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Maanaoui reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

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

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

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

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

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

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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