User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Home BP monitoring in older adults falls short of recommendations
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.
“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.
The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.
The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.
Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.
The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Continuous cuffless monitoring may fuel lifestyle change to lower BP
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wearing a cuffless device on the wrist to continuously monitor blood pressure was associated with a significantly lower systolic BP at 6 months among hypertensive adults, real-world results from Europe show.
“We don’t know what they did to reduce their blood pressure,” Jay Shah, MD, Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization.
“The idea is that because they were exposed to their data on a continual basis, that may have prompted them to do something that led to an improvement in their blood pressure, whether it be exercise more, go to their doctor, or change their medication,” said Dr. Shah, who is also chief medical officer for Aktiia.
Dr. Shah presented the study at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, San Diego.
Empowering data
The study used the Aktiia 24/7 BP monitor; Atkiia funded the trial. The monitor passively and continually monitors BP values from photoplethysmography signals collected via optical sensors at the wrist.
After initial individualized calibration using a cuff-based reference, BP measurements are displayed on a smartphone app, allowing users to consistently monitor their own BP for long periods of time.
Aktiia received CE mark in Europe in January 2021 and is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Dr. Shah and colleagues analyzed systolic BP (SBP) trends among 838 real-world Aktiia users in Europe (age 57 ± 11 years; 14% women) who consistently used the monitor for 6 months.
Altogether, they had data on 375 (± 287) app interactions, 3,646 (± 1,417) cuffless readings per user, and 9 (± 7) cuff readings per user.
Traditional cuff SBP averages were calculated monthly and compared with the SBP average of the first month. A t-test analysis was used to detect the difference in SBP between the first and successive months.
On the basis of the mean SBP calculated over 6 months, 136 participants were hypertensive (SBP > 140 mm Hg) and the rest had SBP less than 140 mm Hg.
Hypertensive users saw a statistically significant reduction in SBP of –3.2 mm Hg (95% CI, –0.70 to –5.59; P < .02), beginning at 3 months of continual cuffless BP monitoring, which was sustained through 6 months.
Among users with SBP less than 140 mm Hg, the mean SBP remained unchanged.
“The magnitude of improvement might look modest, but even a 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP correlates to a 10% decrease in cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Shah told this news organization.
He noted that “one of the major hurdles is that people may not be aware they have high blood pressure because they don’t feel it. And with a regular cuff, they’ll only see that number when they actually check their blood pressure, which is extremely rare, even for people who have hypertension.”
“Having the ability to show someone their continual blood pressure picture really empowers them to do something to make changes and to be aware, [as well as] to be a more active participant in their health,” Dr. Shah said.
He said that a good analogy is diabetes management, which has transitioned from single finger-stick glucose monitoring to continuous glucose monitoring that provides a complete 24/7 picture of glucose levels.
Transforming technology
Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said that having an accurate, affordable, unobtrusive cuffless continuous BP monitor would “transform” BP management.
“This could unlock an era of precision BP management with empowerment of patients to view and act on their numbers,” Dr. Krumholz said in an interview.
“We need data to be confident in the devices – and then research to best leverage the streams of information – and strategies to optimize its use in practice,” Dr. Krumholz added.
“Like any new innovation, we need to mitigate risks and monitor for unintended adverse consequences, but I am bullish on the future of cuffless continuous BP monitors,” Dr. Krumholz said.
Dr. Krumholz said that he “applauds Aktiia for doing studies that assess the effect of the information they are producing on BP over time. We need to know that new approaches not only generate valid information but that they can improve health.”
Ready for prime time?
In June, the European Society of Hypertension issued a statement noting that cuffless BP measurement is a fast-growing and promising field with considerable potential for improving hypertension awareness, management, and control, but because the accuracy of these new devices has not yet been validated, they are not yet suitable for clinical use.
Also providing perspective, Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, research director, Hypertension Center of Excellence at Healthcare Associates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said that “there is a lot of interest in cuffless BP monitors due to their ease of measurement, comfort, and ability to obtain BP measurements in multiple settings and environments, and this study showed that the monitoring improved BP over time.”
“It is believed that the increased awareness and feedback may promote healthier behaviors aimed at lowering BP. However, this result should not be conflated with the accuracy of these monitors,” Dr. Juraschek cautioned.
He also noted that there is still no formally approved validation protocol by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
“While a number of cuffless devices are cleared by the FDA through its 510k mechanism (that is, demonstration of device equivalence), there is no formal stamp of approval or attestation that the measurements are accurate,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.
In his view, “more work is needed to understand the validity of these devices. For now, validated, cuff-based home devices are recommended for BP measurement at home, while further work is done to determine the accuracy of these cuffless technologies.”
The study was funded by Aktiia. Dr. Shah is an employee of the company. Dr. Krumholz has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Juraschek is a member of the Validate BP review committee and the AAMI sphygmomanometer committee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA HYPERTENSION 2022
House passes prior authorization bill, Senate path unclear
The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.
House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.
“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”
Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.
But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.
The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
CBO: Cost of change would be billions
In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.
Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”
On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.
Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.
Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.
The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.
The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).
As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.
Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.
Good intentions, poor implementation?
Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.
“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.
He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.
“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
Trends in prior authorization
The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.
From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.
One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.
The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.
An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.
The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.
Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.
In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.
They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.
As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.
The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.
In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.
“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.
On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.
Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.
“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.
House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.
“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”
Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.
But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.
The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
CBO: Cost of change would be billions
In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.
Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”
On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.
Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.
Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.
The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.
The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).
As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.
Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.
Good intentions, poor implementation?
Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.
“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.
He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.
“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
Trends in prior authorization
The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.
From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.
One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.
The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.
An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.
The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.
Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.
In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.
They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.
As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.
The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.
In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.
“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.
On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.
Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.
“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The path through the U.S. Senate is not yet certain for a bill intended to speed the prior authorization process of insurer-run Medicare Advantage plans, despite the measure having breezed through the House.
House leaders opted to move the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 (HR 3173) without requiring a roll-call vote. The measure was passed on Sept. 14 by a voice vote, an approach used in general with only uncontroversial measures that have broad support. The bill has 191 Democratic and 135 Republican sponsors, representing about three-quarters of the members of the House.
“There is no reason that patients should be waiting for medically appropriate care, especially when we know that this can lead to worse outcomes,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said in a Sept. 14 speech on the House floor. “The fundamental promise of Medicare Advantage is undermined when people are delaying care, getting sicker, and ultimately costing Medicare more money.”
Rep. Greg Murphy, MD (R-N.C.), spoke on the House floor that day as well, bringing up cases he has seen in his own urology practice in which prior authorization delays disrupted medical care. One patient wound up in the hospital with abscess after an insurer denied an antibiotic prescription, Rep. Murphy said.
But the Senate appears unlikely at this time to move the prior authorization bill as a standalone measure. Instead, the bill may become part of a larger legislative package focused on health care that the Senate Finance Committee intends to prepare later this year.
The House-passed bill would require insurer-run Medicare plans to respond to expedited requests for prior authorization of services within 24 hours and to other requests within 7 days. This bill also would establish an electronic program for prior authorizations and mandate increased transparency as to how insurers use this tool.
CBO: Cost of change would be billions
In seeking to mandate changes in prior authorization, lawmakers likely will need to contend with the issue of a $16 billion cumulative cost estimate for the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Members of Congress often seek to offset new spending by pairing bills that add to expected costs for the federal government with ones expected to produce savings.
Unlike Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Murphy, and other backers of the prior authorization streamlining bill, CBO staff estimates that making the mandated changes would raise federal spending, inasmuch as there would be “a greater use of services.”
On Sept. 14, CBO issued a one-page report on the costs of the bill. The CBO report concerns only the bill in question, as is common practice with the office’s estimates.
Prior authorization changes would begin in fiscal 2025 and would add $899 million in spending, or outlays, that year, CBO said. The annual costs from the streamlined prior authorization practices through fiscal 2026 to 2032 range from $1.6 billion to $2.7 billion.
Looking at the CBO estimate against a backdrop of total Medicare Advantage costs, though, may provide important context.
The increases in spending estimated by CBO may suggest that there would be little change in federal spending as a result of streamlining prior authorization practices. These estimates of increased annual spending of $1.6 billion–$2.7 billion are only a small fraction of the current annual cost of insurer-run Medicare, and they represent an even smaller share of the projected expense.
The federal government last year spent about $350 billion on insurer-run plans, excluding Part D drug plan payments, according to the Medicare Advisory Payment Commission (MedPAC).
As of 2021, about 27 million people were enrolled in these plans, accounting for about 46% of the total Medicare population. Enrollment has doubled since 2010, MedPAC said, and it is expected to continue to grow. By 2027, insurer-run Medicare could cover 50% of the program’s population, a figure that may reach 53% by 2031.
Federal payments to these plans will accelerate in the years ahead as insurers attract more people eligible for Medicare as customers. Payments to these private health plans could rise from an expected $418 billion this year to $940.6 billion by 2031, according to the most recent Medicare trustees report.
Good intentions, poor implementation?
Insurer-run Medicare has long enjoyed deep bipartisan support in Congress. That’s due in part to its potential for reducing spending on what are considered low-value treatments, or ones considered unlikely to provide a significant medical benefit, but Rep. Blumenauer is among the members of Congress who see insurer-run Medicare as a path for preserving the giant federal health program. Traditional Medicare has far fewer restrictions on services, which sometimes opens a path for tests and treatments that offer less value for patients.
“I believe that the way traditional fee-for-service Medicare operates is not sustainable and that Medicare Advantage is one of the tools we can use to demonstrate how we can incentivize value,” Rep. Blumenauer said on the House floor. “But this is only possible when the program operates as intended. I have been deeply concerned about the reports of delays in care” caused by the clunky prior authorization processes.
He highlighted a recent report from the internal watchdog group for the Department of Health & Human Services that raises concerns about denials of appropriate care. About 18% of a set of payment denials examined by the Office of Inspector General of HHS in April actually met Medicare coverage rules and plan billing rules.
“For patients and their families, being told that you need to wait longer for care that your doctor tells you that you need is incredibly frustrating and frightening,” Rep. Blumenauer said. “There’s no comfort to be found in the fact that your insurance company needs time to decide if your doctor is right.”
Trends in prior authorization
The CBO report does not provide detail on what kind of medical spending would increase under a streamlined prior authorization process in insurer-run Medicare plans.
From trends reported in prior authorization, though, two factors could be at play in what appear to be relatively small estimated increases in Medicare spending from streamlined prior authorization.
One is the work already underway to create less burdensome electronic systems for these requests, such as the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway initiative run by the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans.
The other factor could be the number of cases in which prior authorization merely causes delays in treatments and tests and thus simply postpones spending while adding to clinicians’ administrative work.
An analysis of prior authorization requests for dermatologic practices affiliated with the University of Utah may represent an extreme example. In a report published in JAMA Dermatology in 2020, researchers described what happened with requests made during 1 month, September 2016.
The approval rate for procedures was 99.6% – 100% (95 of 95) for Mohs surgery, and 96% (130 of 131, with 4 additional cases pending) for excisions. These findings supported calls for simplifying prior authorization procedures, “perhaps first by eliminating unnecessary PAs [prior authorizations] and appeals,” Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and coauthors wrote in the article.
Still, there is some evidence that insurer-run Medicare policies reduce the use of low-value care.
In a study published in JAMA Health Forum, Emily Boudreau, PhD, of insurer Humana Inc, and coauthors from Tufts University, Boston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia investigated whether insurer-run Medicare could do a better job in reducing the amount of low-value care delivered than the traditional program. They analyzed a set of claims data from 2017 to 2019 for people enrolled in insurer-run and traditional Medicare.
They reported a rate of 23.07 low-value services provided per 100 people in insurer-run Medicare, compared with 25.39 for those in traditional Medicare. Some of the biggest differences reported in the article were in cancer screenings for older people.
As an example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that women older than 65 years not be screened for cervical cancer if they have undergone adequate screening in the past and are not at high risk for cervical cancer. There was an annual count of 1.76 screenings for cervical cancer per 100 women older than 65 in the insurer-run Medicare group versus 3.18 for those in traditional Medicare.
The Better Medicare Alliance issued a statement in favor of the House passage of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act.
In it, the group said the measure would “modernize prior authorization while protecting its essential function in facilitating safe, high-value, evidence-based care.” The alliance promotes use of insurer-run Medicare. The board of the Better Medicare Alliance includes executives who serve with firms that run Advantage plans as well as medical organizations and universities.
“With studies showing that up to one-quarter of all health care expenditures are wasted on services with no benefit to the patient, we need a robust, next-generation prior authorization program to deter low-value, and even harmful, care while protecting access to needed treatment and effective therapies,” said A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, in a statement issued by the Better Medicare Alliance. He is a member of the group’s council of scholars.
On the House floor on September 14, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), said he has heard from former colleagues and his medical school classmates that they now spend as much as 40% of their time on administrative work. These distractions from patient care are helping drive physicians away from the practice of medicine.
Still, the internist defended the basic premise of prior authorization while strongly appealing for better systems of handling it.
“Yes, there is a role for prior authorization in limited cases. There is also a role to go back and retrospectively look at how care is being delivered,” Rep. Bera said. “But what is happening today is a travesty. It wasn’t the intention of prior authorization. It is a prior authorization process gone awry.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New science reveals the best way to take a pill
I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”
Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.
Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.
If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
Who’s Duke?
Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.
Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.
Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.
“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
Your posture may help a pill work better
Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.
The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.
They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)
That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.
a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
How this could help people
Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.
Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.
In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”
As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)
And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”
Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.
Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.
If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
Who’s Duke?
Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.
Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.
Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.
“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
Your posture may help a pill work better
Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.
The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.
They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)
That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.
a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
How this could help people
Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.
Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.
In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”
As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)
And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”
Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.
Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.
If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
Who’s Duke?
Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.
Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.
Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.
“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
Your posture may help a pill work better
Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.
The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.
They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)
That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.
a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
How this could help people
Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.
Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.
In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”
As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)
And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
WPATH removes age limits from transgender treatment guidelines
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.
The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.
These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.
The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.
For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
The complexity of treating adolescents
WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.
Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.
The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.
However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.
The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.
Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.
The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.
“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.
WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”
Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.
SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.
And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.
It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”
SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”
And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”
Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’
WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.
However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.
The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.
“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.
In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.
“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSGENDER HEALTH
Physicians can’t be bystanders in ‘silent scourge’ of medical bullying
Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.
“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.
The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”
The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.
“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”
She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”
Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.
Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying
This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”
She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”
Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”
Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.
“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.
The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”
The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.
“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”
She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”
Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.
Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying
This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”
She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”
Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”
Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.
“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.
The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”
The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.
“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”
She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”
Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.
Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying
This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”
She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”
Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”
Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.
The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Experts express caution over type 2 diabetes/tea-drinking claim
type 2 diabetes/tea-drinking claim
A claim that drinking tea might protect people against developing type 2 diabetes has been met with caution from multiple experts ahead of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The claim is that people who drink four or more cups of tea every day – specifically green, Oolong, or black tea – are 17% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who do not drink tea. Drinking fewer cups of tea per day was not found to confer any benefit.
“Our results are exciting because they suggest that people can do something as simple as drinking four cups of tea a day to potentially lessen their risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Xiaying Li of Wuhan (China) University of Science and Technology is quoted as saying in an official EASD press release.
“It is possible that particular components in tea, such as polyphenols, may reduce blood glucose levels, but a sufficient amount of these bioactive compounds may be needed to be effective,” Dr. Li added.
“The words ‘suggest’ and ‘potentially’ are crucial here,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, MSc, MBA, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said in a separate statement to the press that reeled in Dr. Li’s enthusiasm.
“Tea drinking would only be useful for reducing diabetes risk if the tea drinking causes reductions in risk, that is, if the risk is reduced if you drink the tea and not if you don’t – and this study simply can’t show whether it does this or not,” Dr. Conway stressed.
Naveed Sattar, FMedSci FRCPath FRCPGlas FRSE, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, was also cautiously critical. “There is no good trial evidence whatsoever that the chemicals in tea prevent diabetes,” he observed separately.
“So, I suspect its more about tea being healthier (less calorific) than many alternative drinks or tea drinkers leading healthier lives more generally.”
Dr. Sattar added that it could be that people who drink tea might also be avoiding drinking more harmful sugary drinks and have other health behaviors that might lead them to have a lower risk for type 2 diabetes.
Time for tea?
Dr. Li will present the findings of two analyses on Sept. 21 at the EASD meeting: the first a large observational cohort study and the second an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
For the cohort study, Dr. Li and her coauthors took data on more than 5,100 adults who had participated in the long-running and ongoing China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). Information on tea drinking behavior was extracted from questionnaires that had been filled out at two time points – 1997 and 2009 – and they determined whether people had developed type 2 diabetes according to American Diabetes Association criteria.
Nearly half, 45.8%, were found to be tea drinkers, and 10% of the population they sampled had developed type 2 diabetes. No association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes development was found, however, with the hazard ratio comparing tea drinkers and non–tea drinkers sitting firmly at 1.02. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who had developed type 2 diabetes in the first 3 years of follow-up did not change the result.
Things were slightly different when Dr. Li and associates performed their meta-analysis that involved analyzing data on more than 1 million participants in 19 studies conducted in eight countries that had been published up to September 2021.
Here, they found there was a significant (P < .003) linear association between tea consumption and having type 2 diabetes, with the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes decreasing by 0.986 for every additional cup of tea that was drunk.
HRs for the development of type 2 diabetes in tea drinkers versus non–tea drinkers were 1.00 for those who drank less than one cup per day, 0.96 for those who had one to two cups, and 0.84 for those who drank four or more cups.
“While more research needs to be done to determine the exact dosage and mechanisms behind these observations, our findings suggest that drinking tea is beneficial in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, but only at high doses (at least 4 cups a day)”, said Dr. Li.
Perhaps, “we did not find an association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes in our cohort study because we did not look at higher tea consumption,” she added.
Tempest in a teacup
“This is large, observational data. It’s not a randomized controlled trial so there’s plenty of room for data to be misunderstood,” warned Matt Sydes, MSc, professor of clinical trials & methodology at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London.
“Everyone drinks fluids. If there is an effect here (and that’s a big if), it might be not about the tea they drink, but about what they don’t drink. One can’t tell at the moment. It seems unlikely that a large randomized controlled trial could be done to disambiguate” added Dr. Sydes
“Being only a conference abstract, it is difficult to assess the quality of this research,” Baptiste Leurent, PhD, a medical statistician also working at University College London, said. Not only was the cohort study observational, so were all the other studies included in the meta-analysis, he pointed out.
“Therefore, no cause-effect conclusions can be drawn. The association could simply be due to other factors, such as those drinking more tea having a healthier lifestyle. It does not seem that the authors tried to control for confounders, which is usually difficult in meta-analysis,” Dr. Leurent said.
“There is reason to be a bit skeptical at this point; we really need to have the full details to assess it properly,” said Jonathan Cook of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at the University of Oxford (England). “It’s a fair attempt to look at this, but not cutting edge, [using] fairly standard approaches.”
Similar studies have shown a reduced risk associated with coffee drinking, noted Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University in Birmingham.
“The important take-home message is that lifestyle is important in managing risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mellor said.
“That includes choosing low-calorie drinks including mainly water as well as unsweetened tea and coffee as your drinks of choice as part of a healthy lifestyle.”
The study was funded by the Young Talents Project of Hubei Provincial Health Commission, the Science and Technology Research Key Project of Education Department of Hubei Province, the Sanuo Diabetes Charity Foundation, and the Xiangyang Science and Technology Plan Project, all based in China. Dr. Li had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. McConway is a Trustee and on the advisory committee of The Science Media Centre. Dr. Sattar has consulted for many companies that make diabetes and cardiovascular drugs and has been involved in multiple trials of lifestyle approaches for the prevention and remission of diabetes. Dr. Sydes, Dr. Leurent, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Mellor had no conflicts of interest to report.
A claim that drinking tea might protect people against developing type 2 diabetes has been met with caution from multiple experts ahead of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The claim is that people who drink four or more cups of tea every day – specifically green, Oolong, or black tea – are 17% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who do not drink tea. Drinking fewer cups of tea per day was not found to confer any benefit.
“Our results are exciting because they suggest that people can do something as simple as drinking four cups of tea a day to potentially lessen their risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Xiaying Li of Wuhan (China) University of Science and Technology is quoted as saying in an official EASD press release.
“It is possible that particular components in tea, such as polyphenols, may reduce blood glucose levels, but a sufficient amount of these bioactive compounds may be needed to be effective,” Dr. Li added.
“The words ‘suggest’ and ‘potentially’ are crucial here,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, MSc, MBA, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said in a separate statement to the press that reeled in Dr. Li’s enthusiasm.
“Tea drinking would only be useful for reducing diabetes risk if the tea drinking causes reductions in risk, that is, if the risk is reduced if you drink the tea and not if you don’t – and this study simply can’t show whether it does this or not,” Dr. Conway stressed.
Naveed Sattar, FMedSci FRCPath FRCPGlas FRSE, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, was also cautiously critical. “There is no good trial evidence whatsoever that the chemicals in tea prevent diabetes,” he observed separately.
“So, I suspect its more about tea being healthier (less calorific) than many alternative drinks or tea drinkers leading healthier lives more generally.”
Dr. Sattar added that it could be that people who drink tea might also be avoiding drinking more harmful sugary drinks and have other health behaviors that might lead them to have a lower risk for type 2 diabetes.
Time for tea?
Dr. Li will present the findings of two analyses on Sept. 21 at the EASD meeting: the first a large observational cohort study and the second an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
For the cohort study, Dr. Li and her coauthors took data on more than 5,100 adults who had participated in the long-running and ongoing China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). Information on tea drinking behavior was extracted from questionnaires that had been filled out at two time points – 1997 and 2009 – and they determined whether people had developed type 2 diabetes according to American Diabetes Association criteria.
Nearly half, 45.8%, were found to be tea drinkers, and 10% of the population they sampled had developed type 2 diabetes. No association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes development was found, however, with the hazard ratio comparing tea drinkers and non–tea drinkers sitting firmly at 1.02. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who had developed type 2 diabetes in the first 3 years of follow-up did not change the result.
Things were slightly different when Dr. Li and associates performed their meta-analysis that involved analyzing data on more than 1 million participants in 19 studies conducted in eight countries that had been published up to September 2021.
Here, they found there was a significant (P < .003) linear association between tea consumption and having type 2 diabetes, with the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes decreasing by 0.986 for every additional cup of tea that was drunk.
HRs for the development of type 2 diabetes in tea drinkers versus non–tea drinkers were 1.00 for those who drank less than one cup per day, 0.96 for those who had one to two cups, and 0.84 for those who drank four or more cups.
“While more research needs to be done to determine the exact dosage and mechanisms behind these observations, our findings suggest that drinking tea is beneficial in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, but only at high doses (at least 4 cups a day)”, said Dr. Li.
Perhaps, “we did not find an association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes in our cohort study because we did not look at higher tea consumption,” she added.
Tempest in a teacup
“This is large, observational data. It’s not a randomized controlled trial so there’s plenty of room for data to be misunderstood,” warned Matt Sydes, MSc, professor of clinical trials & methodology at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London.
“Everyone drinks fluids. If there is an effect here (and that’s a big if), it might be not about the tea they drink, but about what they don’t drink. One can’t tell at the moment. It seems unlikely that a large randomized controlled trial could be done to disambiguate” added Dr. Sydes
“Being only a conference abstract, it is difficult to assess the quality of this research,” Baptiste Leurent, PhD, a medical statistician also working at University College London, said. Not only was the cohort study observational, so were all the other studies included in the meta-analysis, he pointed out.
“Therefore, no cause-effect conclusions can be drawn. The association could simply be due to other factors, such as those drinking more tea having a healthier lifestyle. It does not seem that the authors tried to control for confounders, which is usually difficult in meta-analysis,” Dr. Leurent said.
“There is reason to be a bit skeptical at this point; we really need to have the full details to assess it properly,” said Jonathan Cook of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at the University of Oxford (England). “It’s a fair attempt to look at this, but not cutting edge, [using] fairly standard approaches.”
Similar studies have shown a reduced risk associated with coffee drinking, noted Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University in Birmingham.
“The important take-home message is that lifestyle is important in managing risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mellor said.
“That includes choosing low-calorie drinks including mainly water as well as unsweetened tea and coffee as your drinks of choice as part of a healthy lifestyle.”
The study was funded by the Young Talents Project of Hubei Provincial Health Commission, the Science and Technology Research Key Project of Education Department of Hubei Province, the Sanuo Diabetes Charity Foundation, and the Xiangyang Science and Technology Plan Project, all based in China. Dr. Li had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. McConway is a Trustee and on the advisory committee of The Science Media Centre. Dr. Sattar has consulted for many companies that make diabetes and cardiovascular drugs and has been involved in multiple trials of lifestyle approaches for the prevention and remission of diabetes. Dr. Sydes, Dr. Leurent, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Mellor had no conflicts of interest to report.
A claim that drinking tea might protect people against developing type 2 diabetes has been met with caution from multiple experts ahead of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The claim is that people who drink four or more cups of tea every day – specifically green, Oolong, or black tea – are 17% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who do not drink tea. Drinking fewer cups of tea per day was not found to confer any benefit.
“Our results are exciting because they suggest that people can do something as simple as drinking four cups of tea a day to potentially lessen their risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Xiaying Li of Wuhan (China) University of Science and Technology is quoted as saying in an official EASD press release.
“It is possible that particular components in tea, such as polyphenols, may reduce blood glucose levels, but a sufficient amount of these bioactive compounds may be needed to be effective,” Dr. Li added.
“The words ‘suggest’ and ‘potentially’ are crucial here,” said Kevin McConway, PhD, MSc, MBA, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said in a separate statement to the press that reeled in Dr. Li’s enthusiasm.
“Tea drinking would only be useful for reducing diabetes risk if the tea drinking causes reductions in risk, that is, if the risk is reduced if you drink the tea and not if you don’t – and this study simply can’t show whether it does this or not,” Dr. Conway stressed.
Naveed Sattar, FMedSci FRCPath FRCPGlas FRSE, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, was also cautiously critical. “There is no good trial evidence whatsoever that the chemicals in tea prevent diabetes,” he observed separately.
“So, I suspect its more about tea being healthier (less calorific) than many alternative drinks or tea drinkers leading healthier lives more generally.”
Dr. Sattar added that it could be that people who drink tea might also be avoiding drinking more harmful sugary drinks and have other health behaviors that might lead them to have a lower risk for type 2 diabetes.
Time for tea?
Dr. Li will present the findings of two analyses on Sept. 21 at the EASD meeting: the first a large observational cohort study and the second an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
For the cohort study, Dr. Li and her coauthors took data on more than 5,100 adults who had participated in the long-running and ongoing China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). Information on tea drinking behavior was extracted from questionnaires that had been filled out at two time points – 1997 and 2009 – and they determined whether people had developed type 2 diabetes according to American Diabetes Association criteria.
Nearly half, 45.8%, were found to be tea drinkers, and 10% of the population they sampled had developed type 2 diabetes. No association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes development was found, however, with the hazard ratio comparing tea drinkers and non–tea drinkers sitting firmly at 1.02. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis that excluded participants who had developed type 2 diabetes in the first 3 years of follow-up did not change the result.
Things were slightly different when Dr. Li and associates performed their meta-analysis that involved analyzing data on more than 1 million participants in 19 studies conducted in eight countries that had been published up to September 2021.
Here, they found there was a significant (P < .003) linear association between tea consumption and having type 2 diabetes, with the relative risk of developing type 2 diabetes decreasing by 0.986 for every additional cup of tea that was drunk.
HRs for the development of type 2 diabetes in tea drinkers versus non–tea drinkers were 1.00 for those who drank less than one cup per day, 0.96 for those who had one to two cups, and 0.84 for those who drank four or more cups.
“While more research needs to be done to determine the exact dosage and mechanisms behind these observations, our findings suggest that drinking tea is beneficial in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, but only at high doses (at least 4 cups a day)”, said Dr. Li.
Perhaps, “we did not find an association between tea drinking and type 2 diabetes in our cohort study because we did not look at higher tea consumption,” she added.
Tempest in a teacup
“This is large, observational data. It’s not a randomized controlled trial so there’s plenty of room for data to be misunderstood,” warned Matt Sydes, MSc, professor of clinical trials & methodology at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London.
“Everyone drinks fluids. If there is an effect here (and that’s a big if), it might be not about the tea they drink, but about what they don’t drink. One can’t tell at the moment. It seems unlikely that a large randomized controlled trial could be done to disambiguate” added Dr. Sydes
“Being only a conference abstract, it is difficult to assess the quality of this research,” Baptiste Leurent, PhD, a medical statistician also working at University College London, said. Not only was the cohort study observational, so were all the other studies included in the meta-analysis, he pointed out.
“Therefore, no cause-effect conclusions can be drawn. The association could simply be due to other factors, such as those drinking more tea having a healthier lifestyle. It does not seem that the authors tried to control for confounders, which is usually difficult in meta-analysis,” Dr. Leurent said.
“There is reason to be a bit skeptical at this point; we really need to have the full details to assess it properly,” said Jonathan Cook of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at the University of Oxford (England). “It’s a fair attempt to look at this, but not cutting edge, [using] fairly standard approaches.”
Similar studies have shown a reduced risk associated with coffee drinking, noted Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University in Birmingham.
“The important take-home message is that lifestyle is important in managing risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mellor said.
“That includes choosing low-calorie drinks including mainly water as well as unsweetened tea and coffee as your drinks of choice as part of a healthy lifestyle.”
The study was funded by the Young Talents Project of Hubei Provincial Health Commission, the Science and Technology Research Key Project of Education Department of Hubei Province, the Sanuo Diabetes Charity Foundation, and the Xiangyang Science and Technology Plan Project, all based in China. Dr. Li had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. McConway is a Trustee and on the advisory committee of The Science Media Centre. Dr. Sattar has consulted for many companies that make diabetes and cardiovascular drugs and has been involved in multiple trials of lifestyle approaches for the prevention and remission of diabetes. Dr. Sydes, Dr. Leurent, Dr. Cook, and Dr. Mellor had no conflicts of interest to report.
type 2 diabetes/tea-drinking claim
type 2 diabetes/tea-drinking claim
FROM EASD 2022
EHR: A progress report
I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason:
Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.
The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”
Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.
There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.
Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.
The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.
Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.
The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.
Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.
Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.
Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.
With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.
Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason:
Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.
The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”
Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.
There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.
Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.
The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.
Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.
The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.
Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.
Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.
Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.
With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.
Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason:
Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.
The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”
Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.
There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.
Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.
The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.
Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.
The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.
Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.
Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.
Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.
With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.
Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
At EASD, docs to eye new tactics for type 2 diabetes
Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.
The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.
“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.
What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”
EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”
This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.
DELIVER: The diabetes side
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.
Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.
“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”
“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”
Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”
However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission
On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.
Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.
At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”
Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.
“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”
Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.
“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.
The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.
The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”
Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more
As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.
Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.
Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”
And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.
Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.
“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”
Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.
The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.
“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.
What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”
EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”
This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.
DELIVER: The diabetes side
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.
Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.
“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”
“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”
Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”
However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission
On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.
Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.
At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”
Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.
“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”
Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.
“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.
The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.
The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”
Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more
As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.
Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.
Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”
And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.
Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.
“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”
Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Highlights of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2022 annual meeting include new data on weight loss with the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide and on the effects of dapagliflozin on heart failure in people with diabetes, as well as updated guidelines for type 2 diabetes management.
The EASD meeting will take place Sept. 19-23 in Stockholm. It will be the first in-person meeting since 2019 but will also feature live-streamed content for participants around the world.
“The EASD congress will cover all the different areas and aspects of diabetes research – clinical, basic, epidemiologic, and psychological,” EASD President Stefano Del Prato, MD, told this news organization.
What attendees should expect, said Del Prato of the University of Pisa (Italy), “is the pleasure to be able to participate in person at a meeting and get useful information, not only in terms of the knowledge and intellectual aspects of diabetes, but also something that can be implemented the following day in their daily clinical activities.”
EASD Honorary Secretary Mikael Rydén, MD, added: “I think meeting attendees will really be able to get the absolutely latest developments in all the areas that are relevant to diabetes treatments. It’s the best way to keep yourself up to date.”
This year, in particular, there’s a focus on past, present, and future trends in type 2 diabetes management, along with the co-occurring conditions of obesity, heart failure, and metabolic fatty liver disease.
DELIVER: The diabetes side
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented from the DELIVER trial on the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, comparing data for participants with diabetes, prediabetes, and normoglycemia.
Primary results from DELIVER were presented Aug. 26 at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 in Barcelona and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results showed that dapagliflozin benefits patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, as previously demonstrated in those with reduced ejection fraction in the DAPA-HF trial.
“This information is quite important and is becoming of major interest in the field of diabetes,” Dr. Del Prato said, adding that a related joint EASD/ESC symposium will take place the next morning, on Sept. 23, entitled, “New perspectives on heart function and failure in diabetes.”
“So, within the congress, you get the background, pathophysiology, the diagnostic aspects, and the results of the effect of dapagliflozin on those individuals.”
Dr. Rydén commented, “I think this underlines how important it is for diabetologists to screen our patients better for heart failure because we can actually treat them now.”
However, Dr. Rydén of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also cautioned about use of SGLT2 inhibitors in people with diabetes who use insulin, given the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. “These drugs have side effects and you have to be wary who you prescribe them to. For those on multiple daily [insulin] injections, the side effects probably outweigh the benefits.”
Tirzepatide, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes remission
On Sept. 21, a symposium will provide new data for the dual glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide, approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States in May with the brand name Mounjaro. The agent is now being studied as an obesity treatment.
Data from the SURMOUNT-1 trial presented at the ADA meeting in June showed the drug produced “unprecedented” weight loss of up to 22.5%.
At EASD, those findings will be reviewed and new data presented on morbidity and mortality, along with a new commentary. The degree of weight loss seen with this new twincretin has furthered discussion about the concept of remission in type 2 diabetes, Dr. Rydén noted. That will also be the subject of the Diabetologia symposium on Sept. 21, entitled, “Remission of type 2 diabetes – fact or fiction?”
Regarding tirzepatide, Dr. Rydén said: “It’s amazing, the most powerful antiobesity drug we have at our disposal. These drugs slow gastric emptying and have other beneficial effects. … We’re now closing in on drugs that produce more than 15% weight loss. That appears to be the ‘magic bullet’ where you can achieve type 2 diabetes remission.” He pointed to a symposium sponsored by The Lancet on this topic at last year’s EASD meeting.
“I think what we want with our drugs is not to treat but actually to combat type 2 diabetes and really to achieve remission. Of course, if you’ve had it for many decades that might be impossible, but we know that particularly in the first 5-10 years it’s very important to have good glucose control and we know we can also achieve remission.”
Dr. Del Prato noted the importance of weight reduction at the time of type 2 diabetes diagnosis will be emphasized in the ADA/EASD consensus document on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, to be presented in its final form on Sept. 23.
“I think we’ll be learning more about potential remission in the future, both because of metabolic surgery and agents like tirzepatide. The reduction in body weight that can be achieved [with these newer drugs], or that has been reported so far, is the closest to what can be obtained with metabolic surgery. I think there will be more and more information and a lot of discussion about this, and of course about the definition of remission and what to do after remission has occurred,” Dr. Del Prato said.
The revised ADA/EASD consensus document is expected to endorse weight loss as a “co-primary goal” of care for those without cardiorenal disease, along with early initiation of combination therapies – for example, taking two drugs immediately upon diagnosis, rather than just metformin – as opposed to the prior stepwise approach. The document will also cover use of newer glucose-lowering therapies, surgery, and behavioral interventions.
The key is a holistic approach, Dr. Del Prato said. “Of course, glucose control is important, but it’s not the only thing. The heterogeneity of the population with diabetes is also important. Some may already have microvascular complications, kidney dysfunction, are more or less obese, and older or younger. We need to keep these differences in mind to provide more and more individualized treatment.”
Related to that, he noted, will be a joint EASD/ADA symposium on Sept. 19, entitled, “Precision medicine in type 2 diabetes: How far can we get?”
COVID-19 and diabetes, UKPDS, type 1 diabetes, and much more
As always, there’s a whole lot more. On Sept. 21, there will be a symposium on COVID-19 and diabetes.
Another, on diabetes technology, has a somewhat cautionary theme: “A new hope (Star Wars) or strange new worlds (Star Trek): Submerging diabetes into emerging technologies.” One of the speakers will address the question: “Are we becoming robots? Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems for everyone with type 1 diabetes: Strengths and limitations.” And this year’s EASD/JDRF symposium topic will be prevention of type 1 diabetes.
Yet another symposium on Sept. 21 will present 44-year follow-up data from the landmark United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), including an economic analysis and a look at dementia outcomes. “It’s a historical thing. This big trial represents a gold mine of information,” Dr. Del Prato commented.
On Sept. 22, new data will be presented for the investigational once-weekly insulins during a symposium entitled, “Re-inventing the insulin experience: Exploring the prospects of once-weekly insulins.”
And lest anyone was thinking of leaving the conference early, there’s a full agenda on Sept. 23, including symposia on diabetic nephropathy, type 1 diabetes, diabetes in old age, dietary management, and the role of primary care, among others. There will also be 12 separate oral presentation sessions that day.
Overall, the meeting will reflect the multidisciplinary direction the field is headed, Dr. Rydén said.
“We’re still in an era of medicine where a lot of things happen every year. Now we have the next generation of drugs that are coming that combine many areas of treatment – obesity, cardiology, and nephrology. So, we’re integrating. The future is integrating the diabetes world with our friends in other areas of clinical medicine.”
Dr. Del Prato has reported being a consultant, advisory board member, and/or lecturer for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Rydén has reported receiving lecture fees from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and serving on advisory boards for MSD, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Quiet quitting: Are physicians dying inside bit by bit? Or setting healthy boundaries?
In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”
But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.
Quiet quitting is a misnomer. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.
Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.
Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.
A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.
Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.
Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.
Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.
Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?
The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.
The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.
It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.
Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.
Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”
But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.
Quiet quitting is a misnomer. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.
Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.
Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.
A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.
Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.
Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.
Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.
Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?
The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.
The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.
It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.
Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.
Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”
But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.
Quiet quitting is a misnomer. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.
Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.
Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.
A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.
Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.
Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.
Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.
Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?
The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.
The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.
It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.
Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.
Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.