Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The field of neurodegenerative dementias, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD), has been revolutionized by the development of imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and is on the brink of a new development: emerging plasma biomarkers. Research now recognizes the relationship between the cognitive-behavioral syndromic diagnosis (that is, the illness) and the etiologic diagnosis (the disease) – and the need to consider each separately when developing a diagnostic formulation. The National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework uses the amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration system to define AD biologically in living patients. Here is an overview of the framework, which requires biomarker evidence of amyloid plaques (amyloid positivity) and neurofibrillary tangles (tau positivity), with evidence of neurodegeneration (neurodegeneration positivity) to support the diagnosis.

The diagnostic approach for symptomatic patients

The differential diagnosis in symptomatic patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild behavioral impairment, or dementia is broad and includes multiple neurodegenerative diseases (for example, AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, argyrophilic grain disease, hippocampal sclerosis); vascular ischemic brain injury (for example, stroke); tumors; infectious, inflammatory, paraneoplastic, or demyelinating diseases; trauma; hydrocephalus; toxic/metabolic insults; and other rare diseases. The patient’s clinical syndrome narrows the differential diagnosis.

Once the clinician has a prioritized differential diagnosis of the brain disease or condition that is probably causing or contributing to the patient’s signs and symptoms, they can then select appropriate assessments and tests, typically starting with a laboratory panel and brain MRI. Strong evidence backed by practice recommendations also supports the use of fluorodeoxyglucose PET as a marker of functional brain abnormalities associated with dementia. Although molecular biomarkers are typically considered at the later stage of the clinical workup, the anticipated future availability of plasma biomarkers will probably change the timing of molecular biomarker assessment in patients with suspected cognitive impairment owing to AD.
 

Molecular PET biomarkers

Three PET tracers approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the detection of cerebral amyloid plaques have high sensitivity (89%-98%) and specificity (88%-100%), compared with autopsy, the gold standard diagnostic tool. However, these scans are costly and are not reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Because all amyloid PET scans are covered by the Veterans Administration, this test is more readily accessible for patients receiving VA benefits.

The appropriate-use criteria developed by the Amyloid Imaging Task Force recommends amyloid PET for patients with persistent or progressive MCI or dementia. In such patients, a negative amyloid PET scan would strongly weigh against AD, supporting a differential diagnosis of other etiologies. Although a positive amyloid PET scan in patients with MCI or dementia indicates the presence of amyloid plaques, it does not necessarily confirm AD as the cause. Cerebral amyloid plaques may coexist with other pathologies and increase with age, even in cognitively normal individuals.

The IDEAS study looked at the clinical utility of amyloid PET in a real-world dementia specialist setting. In the study, dementia subspecialists documented their presumed etiologic diagnosis (and level of confidence) before and after amyloid PET. Of the 11,409 patients who completed the study, the etiologic diagnosis changed from AD to non-AD in just over 25% of cases and from non-AD to AD in 10.5%. Clinical management changed in about 60% of patients with MCI and 63.5% of patients with dementia.

In May 2020, the FDA approved flortaucipir F-18, the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles in adults with cognitive impairment undergoing evaluation for AD. Regulatory approval of flortaucipir F-18 was based on findings from two clinical trials of terminally ill patients who were followed to autopsy. The studies included patients with a spectrum of clinically diagnosed dementias and those with normal cognition. The primary outcome of the studies was accurate visual interpretation of the images in detecting advanced AD tau neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stage V or VI tau pathology). Sensitivity of five trained readers ranged from 68% to 86%, and specificity ranged from 63% to 100%; interrater agreement was 0.87. Tau PET is not yet reimbursed and is therefore not yet readily available in the clinical setting. Moreover, appropriate use criteria have not yet been published.
 

Molecular fluid biomarkers

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is currently the most readily available and reimbursed test to aid in diagnosing AD, with appropriate-use criteria for patients with suspected AD. CSF biomarkers for AD are useful in cognitively impaired patients when the etiologic diagnosis is equivocal, there is only an intermediate level of diagnostic confidence, or there is very high confidence in the etiologic diagnosis. Testing for CSF biomarkers is also recommended for patients at very early clinical stages (for example, early MCI) or with atypical clinical presentations.

A decreased concentration of amyloid-beta 42 in CSF is a marker of amyloid neuritic plaques in the brain. An increased concentration of total tau in CSF reflects injury to neurons, and an increased concentration of specific isoforms of hyperphosphorylated tau reflects neurofibrillary tangles. Presently, the ratios of t-tau to amyloid-beta 42, amyloid-beta 42 to amyloid-beta 40, and phosphorylated-tau 181 to amyloid-beta 42 are the best-performing markers of AD neuropathologic changes and are more accurate than assessing individual biomarkers. These CSF biomarkers of AD have been validated against autopsy, and ratio values of CSF amyloid-beta 42 have been further validated against amyloid PET, with overall sensitivity and specificity of approximately 90% and 84%, respectively.

Some of the most exciting recent advances in AD center around the measurement of these proteins and others in plasma. Appropriate-use criteria for plasma biomarkers in the evaluation of patients with cognitive impairment were published in 2022. In addition to their use in clinical trials, these criteria cautiously recommend using these biomarkers in specialized memory clinics in the diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive symptoms, along with confirmatory CSF markers or PET. Additional data are needed before plasma biomarkers of AD are used as standalone diagnostic markers or considered in the primary care setting.

We have made remarkable progress toward more precise molecular diagnosis of brain diseases underlying cognitive impairment and dementia. Ongoing efforts to evaluate the utility of these measures in clinical practice include the need to increase diversity of patients and providers. Ultimately, the tremendous progress in molecular biomarkers for the diseases causing dementia will help the field work toward our common goal of early and accurate diagnosis, better management, and hope for people living with these diseases.

Bradford C. Dickerson, MD, MMSc, is a professor, department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Frontotemporal Disorders Unit, department of neurology, at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

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

The field of neurodegenerative dementias, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD), has been revolutionized by the development of imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and is on the brink of a new development: emerging plasma biomarkers. Research now recognizes the relationship between the cognitive-behavioral syndromic diagnosis (that is, the illness) and the etiologic diagnosis (the disease) – and the need to consider each separately when developing a diagnostic formulation. The National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework uses the amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration system to define AD biologically in living patients. Here is an overview of the framework, which requires biomarker evidence of amyloid plaques (amyloid positivity) and neurofibrillary tangles (tau positivity), with evidence of neurodegeneration (neurodegeneration positivity) to support the diagnosis.

The diagnostic approach for symptomatic patients

The differential diagnosis in symptomatic patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild behavioral impairment, or dementia is broad and includes multiple neurodegenerative diseases (for example, AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, argyrophilic grain disease, hippocampal sclerosis); vascular ischemic brain injury (for example, stroke); tumors; infectious, inflammatory, paraneoplastic, or demyelinating diseases; trauma; hydrocephalus; toxic/metabolic insults; and other rare diseases. The patient’s clinical syndrome narrows the differential diagnosis.

Once the clinician has a prioritized differential diagnosis of the brain disease or condition that is probably causing or contributing to the patient’s signs and symptoms, they can then select appropriate assessments and tests, typically starting with a laboratory panel and brain MRI. Strong evidence backed by practice recommendations also supports the use of fluorodeoxyglucose PET as a marker of functional brain abnormalities associated with dementia. Although molecular biomarkers are typically considered at the later stage of the clinical workup, the anticipated future availability of plasma biomarkers will probably change the timing of molecular biomarker assessment in patients with suspected cognitive impairment owing to AD.
 

Molecular PET biomarkers

Three PET tracers approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the detection of cerebral amyloid plaques have high sensitivity (89%-98%) and specificity (88%-100%), compared with autopsy, the gold standard diagnostic tool. However, these scans are costly and are not reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Because all amyloid PET scans are covered by the Veterans Administration, this test is more readily accessible for patients receiving VA benefits.

The appropriate-use criteria developed by the Amyloid Imaging Task Force recommends amyloid PET for patients with persistent or progressive MCI or dementia. In such patients, a negative amyloid PET scan would strongly weigh against AD, supporting a differential diagnosis of other etiologies. Although a positive amyloid PET scan in patients with MCI or dementia indicates the presence of amyloid plaques, it does not necessarily confirm AD as the cause. Cerebral amyloid plaques may coexist with other pathologies and increase with age, even in cognitively normal individuals.

The IDEAS study looked at the clinical utility of amyloid PET in a real-world dementia specialist setting. In the study, dementia subspecialists documented their presumed etiologic diagnosis (and level of confidence) before and after amyloid PET. Of the 11,409 patients who completed the study, the etiologic diagnosis changed from AD to non-AD in just over 25% of cases and from non-AD to AD in 10.5%. Clinical management changed in about 60% of patients with MCI and 63.5% of patients with dementia.

In May 2020, the FDA approved flortaucipir F-18, the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles in adults with cognitive impairment undergoing evaluation for AD. Regulatory approval of flortaucipir F-18 was based on findings from two clinical trials of terminally ill patients who were followed to autopsy. The studies included patients with a spectrum of clinically diagnosed dementias and those with normal cognition. The primary outcome of the studies was accurate visual interpretation of the images in detecting advanced AD tau neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stage V or VI tau pathology). Sensitivity of five trained readers ranged from 68% to 86%, and specificity ranged from 63% to 100%; interrater agreement was 0.87. Tau PET is not yet reimbursed and is therefore not yet readily available in the clinical setting. Moreover, appropriate use criteria have not yet been published.
 

Molecular fluid biomarkers

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is currently the most readily available and reimbursed test to aid in diagnosing AD, with appropriate-use criteria for patients with suspected AD. CSF biomarkers for AD are useful in cognitively impaired patients when the etiologic diagnosis is equivocal, there is only an intermediate level of diagnostic confidence, or there is very high confidence in the etiologic diagnosis. Testing for CSF biomarkers is also recommended for patients at very early clinical stages (for example, early MCI) or with atypical clinical presentations.

A decreased concentration of amyloid-beta 42 in CSF is a marker of amyloid neuritic plaques in the brain. An increased concentration of total tau in CSF reflects injury to neurons, and an increased concentration of specific isoforms of hyperphosphorylated tau reflects neurofibrillary tangles. Presently, the ratios of t-tau to amyloid-beta 42, amyloid-beta 42 to amyloid-beta 40, and phosphorylated-tau 181 to amyloid-beta 42 are the best-performing markers of AD neuropathologic changes and are more accurate than assessing individual biomarkers. These CSF biomarkers of AD have been validated against autopsy, and ratio values of CSF amyloid-beta 42 have been further validated against amyloid PET, with overall sensitivity and specificity of approximately 90% and 84%, respectively.

Some of the most exciting recent advances in AD center around the measurement of these proteins and others in plasma. Appropriate-use criteria for plasma biomarkers in the evaluation of patients with cognitive impairment were published in 2022. In addition to their use in clinical trials, these criteria cautiously recommend using these biomarkers in specialized memory clinics in the diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive symptoms, along with confirmatory CSF markers or PET. Additional data are needed before plasma biomarkers of AD are used as standalone diagnostic markers or considered in the primary care setting.

We have made remarkable progress toward more precise molecular diagnosis of brain diseases underlying cognitive impairment and dementia. Ongoing efforts to evaluate the utility of these measures in clinical practice include the need to increase diversity of patients and providers. Ultimately, the tremendous progress in molecular biomarkers for the diseases causing dementia will help the field work toward our common goal of early and accurate diagnosis, better management, and hope for people living with these diseases.

Bradford C. Dickerson, MD, MMSc, is a professor, department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Frontotemporal Disorders Unit, department of neurology, at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

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

The field of neurodegenerative dementias, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD), has been revolutionized by the development of imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and is on the brink of a new development: emerging plasma biomarkers. Research now recognizes the relationship between the cognitive-behavioral syndromic diagnosis (that is, the illness) and the etiologic diagnosis (the disease) – and the need to consider each separately when developing a diagnostic formulation. The National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework uses the amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration system to define AD biologically in living patients. Here is an overview of the framework, which requires biomarker evidence of amyloid plaques (amyloid positivity) and neurofibrillary tangles (tau positivity), with evidence of neurodegeneration (neurodegeneration positivity) to support the diagnosis.

The diagnostic approach for symptomatic patients

The differential diagnosis in symptomatic patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild behavioral impairment, or dementia is broad and includes multiple neurodegenerative diseases (for example, AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, argyrophilic grain disease, hippocampal sclerosis); vascular ischemic brain injury (for example, stroke); tumors; infectious, inflammatory, paraneoplastic, or demyelinating diseases; trauma; hydrocephalus; toxic/metabolic insults; and other rare diseases. The patient’s clinical syndrome narrows the differential diagnosis.

Once the clinician has a prioritized differential diagnosis of the brain disease or condition that is probably causing or contributing to the patient’s signs and symptoms, they can then select appropriate assessments and tests, typically starting with a laboratory panel and brain MRI. Strong evidence backed by practice recommendations also supports the use of fluorodeoxyglucose PET as a marker of functional brain abnormalities associated with dementia. Although molecular biomarkers are typically considered at the later stage of the clinical workup, the anticipated future availability of plasma biomarkers will probably change the timing of molecular biomarker assessment in patients with suspected cognitive impairment owing to AD.
 

Molecular PET biomarkers

Three PET tracers approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the detection of cerebral amyloid plaques have high sensitivity (89%-98%) and specificity (88%-100%), compared with autopsy, the gold standard diagnostic tool. However, these scans are costly and are not reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid. Because all amyloid PET scans are covered by the Veterans Administration, this test is more readily accessible for patients receiving VA benefits.

The appropriate-use criteria developed by the Amyloid Imaging Task Force recommends amyloid PET for patients with persistent or progressive MCI or dementia. In such patients, a negative amyloid PET scan would strongly weigh against AD, supporting a differential diagnosis of other etiologies. Although a positive amyloid PET scan in patients with MCI or dementia indicates the presence of amyloid plaques, it does not necessarily confirm AD as the cause. Cerebral amyloid plaques may coexist with other pathologies and increase with age, even in cognitively normal individuals.

The IDEAS study looked at the clinical utility of amyloid PET in a real-world dementia specialist setting. In the study, dementia subspecialists documented their presumed etiologic diagnosis (and level of confidence) before and after amyloid PET. Of the 11,409 patients who completed the study, the etiologic diagnosis changed from AD to non-AD in just over 25% of cases and from non-AD to AD in 10.5%. Clinical management changed in about 60% of patients with MCI and 63.5% of patients with dementia.

In May 2020, the FDA approved flortaucipir F-18, the first diagnostic tau radiotracer for use with PET to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles in adults with cognitive impairment undergoing evaluation for AD. Regulatory approval of flortaucipir F-18 was based on findings from two clinical trials of terminally ill patients who were followed to autopsy. The studies included patients with a spectrum of clinically diagnosed dementias and those with normal cognition. The primary outcome of the studies was accurate visual interpretation of the images in detecting advanced AD tau neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stage V or VI tau pathology). Sensitivity of five trained readers ranged from 68% to 86%, and specificity ranged from 63% to 100%; interrater agreement was 0.87. Tau PET is not yet reimbursed and is therefore not yet readily available in the clinical setting. Moreover, appropriate use criteria have not yet been published.
 

Molecular fluid biomarkers

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis is currently the most readily available and reimbursed test to aid in diagnosing AD, with appropriate-use criteria for patients with suspected AD. CSF biomarkers for AD are useful in cognitively impaired patients when the etiologic diagnosis is equivocal, there is only an intermediate level of diagnostic confidence, or there is very high confidence in the etiologic diagnosis. Testing for CSF biomarkers is also recommended for patients at very early clinical stages (for example, early MCI) or with atypical clinical presentations.

A decreased concentration of amyloid-beta 42 in CSF is a marker of amyloid neuritic plaques in the brain. An increased concentration of total tau in CSF reflects injury to neurons, and an increased concentration of specific isoforms of hyperphosphorylated tau reflects neurofibrillary tangles. Presently, the ratios of t-tau to amyloid-beta 42, amyloid-beta 42 to amyloid-beta 40, and phosphorylated-tau 181 to amyloid-beta 42 are the best-performing markers of AD neuropathologic changes and are more accurate than assessing individual biomarkers. These CSF biomarkers of AD have been validated against autopsy, and ratio values of CSF amyloid-beta 42 have been further validated against amyloid PET, with overall sensitivity and specificity of approximately 90% and 84%, respectively.

Some of the most exciting recent advances in AD center around the measurement of these proteins and others in plasma. Appropriate-use criteria for plasma biomarkers in the evaluation of patients with cognitive impairment were published in 2022. In addition to their use in clinical trials, these criteria cautiously recommend using these biomarkers in specialized memory clinics in the diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive symptoms, along with confirmatory CSF markers or PET. Additional data are needed before plasma biomarkers of AD are used as standalone diagnostic markers or considered in the primary care setting.

We have made remarkable progress toward more precise molecular diagnosis of brain diseases underlying cognitive impairment and dementia. Ongoing efforts to evaluate the utility of these measures in clinical practice include the need to increase diversity of patients and providers. Ultimately, the tremendous progress in molecular biomarkers for the diseases causing dementia will help the field work toward our common goal of early and accurate diagnosis, better management, and hope for people living with these diseases.

Bradford C. Dickerson, MD, MMSc, is a professor, department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, and director, Frontotemporal Disorders Unit, department of neurology, at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

Aurora, Colo. – The access to and quality of multiple sclerosis (MS) care varies substantially depending on a patient’s race, ethnicity, gender, and geography, according to research on patient-reported health inequities presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

”Equal access to and quality of care are critical for managing a progressive disease such as multiple sclerosis,” said Chris Hardy, of Publicis Health Media, and her associates. “Despite increased awareness of health outcome disparities in the U.S., certain patients still experience inequities in care.”

The researchers sent emails to members of MyMSTeam, an online support network of more than 197,000 members, to request completion of a 34-question online survey. Questions addressed respondents’ ability to access care, resources in their neighborhood, and their interactions with their health care providers. Questions also addressed the burden of MS on individuals’ quality of life, which was considerable across all demographics. The 1,935 patients with MS who responded were overwhelmingly White, though the demographics varied by question.
 

A ‘widespread and significant problem’

“This study is important in pointing out the unfortunate, obvious [fact] that lack of access and lack of availability to treatment is still a widespread and significant problem in this country,” commented Mark Gudesblatt, MD, a neurologist at South Shore Neurologic Associates who was not involved in the study. “Improving effective treatment of disease requires a more granular understanding of disease impact on a quantitative, multidimensional, objective patient-centric approach,” he added. “Racial and ethnic barriers to effective treatment cannot be allowed nor tolerated. We need to be more acutely aware that outreach, digital health, and remote assessments are tools that we need to incorporate to improve access and do better.”

The pervasive impact of MS

Overall, 85% of respondents reported that MS made it harder to do everyday chores, and 84% said their MS made it harder to exercise and interfered with their everyday life. Similarly high proportions of respondents reported that their MS causes them a lot of stress (80%), makes them feel anxious or depressed (77%), disrupts their work/employment (75%), and interferes with their social life (75%). In addition, more than half said their diagnosis negatively affects their family (59%) and makes them feel judged (53%).

Deanne Power, RN, MSCN, the lead nurse care partner at Octave Bioscience, who spoke as a representative of the study authors, said it’s critical that clinicians be aware of the health inequities that exist among their patient population.

“Some patients have lower income or language issues where English is not their primary language, and they don’t have access and are even afraid to call doctor or reach out [for help],” Ms. Power said. “If providers aren’t actively aware of these situations and talk to their patients, they can’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I just want you to go fill this prescription,’ when they don’t have money to put food on their table. Providers have got to know their patients as [more than] just an MS patient. This is a human being in front of you, and you better know what their life is like, because it’s impacting their MS.”
 

Access to care varied by race

Among the 1,906 respondents who answered questions about access to care, 9% were Black, 5% were Hispanic, and the rest were White. In these questions, differences between demographics arose when it came to individuals’ ability to conveniently see an MS specialist and their subsequent use of emergency services. For example, only 64% of Hispanic respondents reported convenient access to a health care provider specializing in MS, compared with 76% of White and 78% of Black respondents.

A significantly higher proportion of Hispanics also reported that they could not take time off from work when they were sick (25%) or to attend a doctor appointment (20%), compared with White (15% and 9%, respectively) and Black (18% and 12%) respondents. Meanwhile, a significantly higher proportion of Hispanics (35%) reported visiting the emergency department in the past year for MS-related issues, compared with White (19%) or Black (25%) respondents.

White respondents consistently had greater convenient access to dental offices, healthy foods, outpatient care, gyms, and parks and trails, compared with Black and Hispanic patients’ access. For example, 85% of White patients had convenient access to dental offices and 72% had access to outpatient care, compared with Black (74% and 65%) and Hispanic (78% and 52%) patients. Two-thirds of Hispanic respondents (67%) reported access to healthy foods and to gyms, parks, or trails, compared with more than three-quarters of both White and Black patients.
 

Other barriers to MS care

Both racial/ethnic and gender disparities emerged in how patients felt treated by their health care providers. Men were significantly more likely (70%) than women (65%) to say their health care provider listens to and understands them. A statistically significant higher proportion of men (71%) also said their clinician explained their MS test results to them, compared with women (62%), and only 28% of women, versus 37% of men, said their provider developed a long-term plan for them.

Anne Foelsch, the vice president of strategic partnerships at MyHealthTeam, who works with the authors, noted the large discrepancy that was seen particularly for Hispanic patients in terms of how they felt treated by their health care provider.

“Doctors might perceive that the relationship is the same with all of their patients when their patients have a very different perception of what that relationship is and whether they’re not being heard,” Ms. Foelsch said. “It’s important that clinicians take a little bit of time and learn a little bit more about a patient’s perspective and what it’s like when they have a chronic condition like MS and how it impacts their life, looking for those nuances that are different based on your ethnicity.”

Just over half of Hispanic patients (54%) said their provider explained their MS test results, compared with nearly two-thirds of White patients (65%) and 61% of Black patients. Hispanic patients were also less likely (55%) to say they felt their provider listens to and understands them than White (67%) or Black (65%) patients. Two-thirds of White respondents (67%) said their doctor recommended regular check-ups, compared with just over half of Black and Hispanic respondents (55%).

Other statistically significant disparities by race/ethnicity, where a higher proportion of White patients responded affirmatively than Black or Hispanic patients, included feeling treated with respect by their health care provider, feeling their provider is nonjudgmental, and saying their provider spends enough time with them, addresses their MS symptoms, and encourages shared decision-making.

“This study nicely documents and points out that despite our best intentions, we need to do much better as a community to help those with chronic and potentially disabling diseases like MS,” Dr. Gudesblatt said. “The racial, ethnic, and gender disparities only result in greater disability and societal costs by those who can least afford it. All therapies fail due to nonadherence, limited access, lack of insurance coverage, limited insurance coverage, high copays, long waits, cultural biases, and more.”

The researchers acknowledged that their survey respondents may not be representative of all patients with MS because the survey relied on those who chose to respond to the online survey.

The study authors were all employees of Publicis Health Media or MyHealthTeam. Dr. Gudesblatt reported no disclosures.
 

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) could enhance care of hospitalized people with diabetes, supplementing or possibly even replacing the use of finger sticks to draw blood to measure a patient’s glucose level. But that technological future will require ensuring that the monitoring devices are as accurate as the conventional method, experts told this news organization.

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enabled in-hospital use of CGMs to reduce contact between patients and health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes is a risk factor for more severe COVID, meaning that many patients with the infection also required ongoing care for their blood sugar problems. 

Prior to the pandemic, in-person finger-stick tests were the primary means of measuring glucose for hospitalized patients with diabetes.

The trouble is that finger-stick measurements quickly become inaccurate.

“Glucose is a measurement that changes pretty rapidly,” said Eileen Faulds, RN, PhD, an endocrinology nurse and health services researcher at the Ohio State University, Columbus. Finger sticks might occur only four or five times per day, Dr. Faulds noted, or as often as every hour for people who receive insulin intravenously. But even that more frequent pace is far from continuous.

“With CGM we can get the glucose level in real time,” Dr. Faulds said. 

Dr. Faulds is lead author of a new study in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, which shows that nurses in the ICU believe that using continuous monitors, subcutaneous filaments connected to sensors that regularly report glucose levels, enables better patient care than does relying on periodic glucose tests alone. Nurses still used traditional finger sticks, which Dr. Faulds notes are highly accurate at the time of the reading.

In a 2022 study, glucose levels generated by CGM and those measured by finger sticks varied by up to 14%. A hybrid care model combining CGMs and finger stick tests may emerge, Dr. Faulds said.
 

A gusher of glucose data

People with diabetes have long been able to use CGMs in their daily lives, which typically report the glucose value to a smartphone or watch. The devices are now part of hospital care as well. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted a breakthrough therapy designation to the company Dexcom for use of its CGMs to manage care of people with diabetes in hospitals.

One open question is how often CGMs should report glucose readings for optimum patient health. Dexcom’s G6 CGM reports glucose levels every five minutes, for example, whereas Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 2 delivers glucose values every minute. 

“We wouldn’t look at each value, we would look at the big picture,” to determine if a patient is at risk of becoming hyper- or hypoglycemic, said Lizda Guerrero-Arroyo, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in endocrinology at the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo recently reported that clinicians in multiple ICUs began to use CGMs in conjunction with finger sticks during the pandemic and felt the devices could reduce patient discomfort. 

“A finger stick is very painful,” Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said, and a bottleneck for nursing staff who administer these tests. In contrast, Dr. Faulds said, CGM placement is essentially painless and requires less labor on the ward to manage.

Beyond use in the ICU, clinicians are also experimenting with use of CGMs to monitor blood sugar levels in people with diabetes who are undergoing general surgery. And other researchers are describing how to integrate data from CGMs into patient care tools such as the electronic health record, although a standard way to do this does not yet exist.

Assuming CGMs remain part of the mix for in-hospital care of people with diabetes, clinicians may mainly need trend summaries of how glucose levels rise and fall over time, said data scientist Samantha Spierling Bagsic, PhD, of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said that she shares that vision. But a minute-by-minute analysis of glucose levels also may be necessary to get a granular sense of how changing a patient’s insulin level affects their blood sugar, Dr. Spierling Bagsic said.

“We need to figure out what data different audiences need, how often we need to measure glucose, and how to present that information to different audiences in different ways,” said Dr. Spierling Bagsic, a co-author of the study about integrating CGM data into patient care tools.

The wider use of CGMs in hospitals may be one silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an inpatient endocrinology nurse, Dr. Faulds said that she wanted to use CGMs prior to the outbreak, but at that point, a critical mass of studies about their benefits was missing.

“We all know the terrible things that happened during the pandemic,” Dr. Faulds said. “But it gave us the allowance to use CGMs, and we saw that nurses loved them.”

Dr. Faulds reports relationships with Dexcom and Insulet and has received an honorarium from Medscape. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo and Dr. Spierling Bagsic reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) could enhance care of hospitalized people with diabetes, supplementing or possibly even replacing the use of finger sticks to draw blood to measure a patient’s glucose level. But that technological future will require ensuring that the monitoring devices are as accurate as the conventional method, experts told this news organization.

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enabled in-hospital use of CGMs to reduce contact between patients and health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes is a risk factor for more severe COVID, meaning that many patients with the infection also required ongoing care for their blood sugar problems. 

Prior to the pandemic, in-person finger-stick tests were the primary means of measuring glucose for hospitalized patients with diabetes.

The trouble is that finger-stick measurements quickly become inaccurate.

“Glucose is a measurement that changes pretty rapidly,” said Eileen Faulds, RN, PhD, an endocrinology nurse and health services researcher at the Ohio State University, Columbus. Finger sticks might occur only four or five times per day, Dr. Faulds noted, or as often as every hour for people who receive insulin intravenously. But even that more frequent pace is far from continuous.

“With CGM we can get the glucose level in real time,” Dr. Faulds said. 

Dr. Faulds is lead author of a new study in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, which shows that nurses in the ICU believe that using continuous monitors, subcutaneous filaments connected to sensors that regularly report glucose levels, enables better patient care than does relying on periodic glucose tests alone. Nurses still used traditional finger sticks, which Dr. Faulds notes are highly accurate at the time of the reading.

In a 2022 study, glucose levels generated by CGM and those measured by finger sticks varied by up to 14%. A hybrid care model combining CGMs and finger stick tests may emerge, Dr. Faulds said.
 

A gusher of glucose data

People with diabetes have long been able to use CGMs in their daily lives, which typically report the glucose value to a smartphone or watch. The devices are now part of hospital care as well. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted a breakthrough therapy designation to the company Dexcom for use of its CGMs to manage care of people with diabetes in hospitals.

One open question is how often CGMs should report glucose readings for optimum patient health. Dexcom’s G6 CGM reports glucose levels every five minutes, for example, whereas Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 2 delivers glucose values every minute. 

“We wouldn’t look at each value, we would look at the big picture,” to determine if a patient is at risk of becoming hyper- or hypoglycemic, said Lizda Guerrero-Arroyo, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in endocrinology at the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo recently reported that clinicians in multiple ICUs began to use CGMs in conjunction with finger sticks during the pandemic and felt the devices could reduce patient discomfort. 

“A finger stick is very painful,” Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said, and a bottleneck for nursing staff who administer these tests. In contrast, Dr. Faulds said, CGM placement is essentially painless and requires less labor on the ward to manage.

Beyond use in the ICU, clinicians are also experimenting with use of CGMs to monitor blood sugar levels in people with diabetes who are undergoing general surgery. And other researchers are describing how to integrate data from CGMs into patient care tools such as the electronic health record, although a standard way to do this does not yet exist.

Assuming CGMs remain part of the mix for in-hospital care of people with diabetes, clinicians may mainly need trend summaries of how glucose levels rise and fall over time, said data scientist Samantha Spierling Bagsic, PhD, of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said that she shares that vision. But a minute-by-minute analysis of glucose levels also may be necessary to get a granular sense of how changing a patient’s insulin level affects their blood sugar, Dr. Spierling Bagsic said.

“We need to figure out what data different audiences need, how often we need to measure glucose, and how to present that information to different audiences in different ways,” said Dr. Spierling Bagsic, a co-author of the study about integrating CGM data into patient care tools.

The wider use of CGMs in hospitals may be one silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an inpatient endocrinology nurse, Dr. Faulds said that she wanted to use CGMs prior to the outbreak, but at that point, a critical mass of studies about their benefits was missing.

“We all know the terrible things that happened during the pandemic,” Dr. Faulds said. “But it gave us the allowance to use CGMs, and we saw that nurses loved them.”

Dr. Faulds reports relationships with Dexcom and Insulet and has received an honorarium from Medscape. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo and Dr. Spierling Bagsic reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) could enhance care of hospitalized people with diabetes, supplementing or possibly even replacing the use of finger sticks to draw blood to measure a patient’s glucose level. But that technological future will require ensuring that the monitoring devices are as accurate as the conventional method, experts told this news organization.

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enabled in-hospital use of CGMs to reduce contact between patients and health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Diabetes is a risk factor for more severe COVID, meaning that many patients with the infection also required ongoing care for their blood sugar problems. 

Prior to the pandemic, in-person finger-stick tests were the primary means of measuring glucose for hospitalized patients with diabetes.

The trouble is that finger-stick measurements quickly become inaccurate.

“Glucose is a measurement that changes pretty rapidly,” said Eileen Faulds, RN, PhD, an endocrinology nurse and health services researcher at the Ohio State University, Columbus. Finger sticks might occur only four or five times per day, Dr. Faulds noted, or as often as every hour for people who receive insulin intravenously. But even that more frequent pace is far from continuous.

“With CGM we can get the glucose level in real time,” Dr. Faulds said. 

Dr. Faulds is lead author of a new study in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, which shows that nurses in the ICU believe that using continuous monitors, subcutaneous filaments connected to sensors that regularly report glucose levels, enables better patient care than does relying on periodic glucose tests alone. Nurses still used traditional finger sticks, which Dr. Faulds notes are highly accurate at the time of the reading.

In a 2022 study, glucose levels generated by CGM and those measured by finger sticks varied by up to 14%. A hybrid care model combining CGMs and finger stick tests may emerge, Dr. Faulds said.
 

A gusher of glucose data

People with diabetes have long been able to use CGMs in their daily lives, which typically report the glucose value to a smartphone or watch. The devices are now part of hospital care as well. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted a breakthrough therapy designation to the company Dexcom for use of its CGMs to manage care of people with diabetes in hospitals.

One open question is how often CGMs should report glucose readings for optimum patient health. Dexcom’s G6 CGM reports glucose levels every five minutes, for example, whereas Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre 2 delivers glucose values every minute. 

“We wouldn’t look at each value, we would look at the big picture,” to determine if a patient is at risk of becoming hyper- or hypoglycemic, said Lizda Guerrero-Arroyo, MD, a postdoctoral fellow in endocrinology at the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo recently reported that clinicians in multiple ICUs began to use CGMs in conjunction with finger sticks during the pandemic and felt the devices could reduce patient discomfort. 

“A finger stick is very painful,” Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said, and a bottleneck for nursing staff who administer these tests. In contrast, Dr. Faulds said, CGM placement is essentially painless and requires less labor on the ward to manage.

Beyond use in the ICU, clinicians are also experimenting with use of CGMs to monitor blood sugar levels in people with diabetes who are undergoing general surgery. And other researchers are describing how to integrate data from CGMs into patient care tools such as the electronic health record, although a standard way to do this does not yet exist.

Assuming CGMs remain part of the mix for in-hospital care of people with diabetes, clinicians may mainly need trend summaries of how glucose levels rise and fall over time, said data scientist Samantha Spierling Bagsic, PhD, of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo said that she shares that vision. But a minute-by-minute analysis of glucose levels also may be necessary to get a granular sense of how changing a patient’s insulin level affects their blood sugar, Dr. Spierling Bagsic said.

“We need to figure out what data different audiences need, how often we need to measure glucose, and how to present that information to different audiences in different ways,” said Dr. Spierling Bagsic, a co-author of the study about integrating CGM data into patient care tools.

The wider use of CGMs in hospitals may be one silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic. As an inpatient endocrinology nurse, Dr. Faulds said that she wanted to use CGMs prior to the outbreak, but at that point, a critical mass of studies about their benefits was missing.

“We all know the terrible things that happened during the pandemic,” Dr. Faulds said. “But it gave us the allowance to use CGMs, and we saw that nurses loved them.”

Dr. Faulds reports relationships with Dexcom and Insulet and has received an honorarium from Medscape. Dr. Guerrero-Arroyo and Dr. Spierling Bagsic reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Securing an appointment with a mental health professional in the United States continues to be a challenge, with wait times for an in-person appointment north of 2 months and over 1 month for a telepsychiatry visit, a new study shows.

“Long wait times for mental health care were a huge problem even before the pandemic but especially during the pandemic,” study investigator Erin McDaid, BS, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, said in an interview.

Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Few psychiatrists taking new patients

To find out just how big an issue wait times are, the researchers examined general psychiatry outpatient availability during the COVID-19 pandemic in five states – New York, California, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Altogether, 948 psychiatrists were sampled. Simulated adult patients made 864 calls seeking an initial psychiatric evaluation for general mental health care. The calls were made late in the pandemic, between May and July 2022.

Only 18.5% of psychiatrists were available to see new patients. The median wait time was 67 days for in-person appointments and 43 days for telepsychiatry appointments (P < .001).

More than half of psychiatrists who were contacted said they were not taking new patients, which was the most common reason given for unavailability.

“This is happening at the worst time, when we are seeing mental health issues spike,” Ms. McDaid said.
 

Telepsychiatry helpful but no panacea

The fact that wait times were a bit shorter for telepsychiatry is encouraging, Ms. McDaid said.

Telepsychiatry is a potential solution to provider shortages and geographic barriers, but it does not resolve the concerning shortage of psychiatric outpatient care, she noted.

“Psychiatrists adapted very well to telepsychiatry during COVID,” Saul Levin, MD, MPA, chief executive officer and medical director of the APA, noted during a preconference briefing with reporters.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – A new study from an addiction clinic adds to the growing evidence that higher early doses of buprenorphine are advisable in certain patients with opioid use disorder. Eighty-five percent of patients who were titrated up to 32 mg remained in treatment for 1 year vs. 22% of those who never went higher than 16 mg, and those on higher doses stayed in treatment 3.83 times longer than those who didn’t.

“Simply put, we demonstrated better retention in treatment if patients were given higher buprenorphine doses when they complained of opioid craving,” said Andrew Gilbert, a medical student at California Northstate University, Elk Grove, Calif. He is lead author of a poster presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

There’s an ongoing debate over ideal doses of buprenorphine (Suboxone), an opioid that’s used to help treat withdrawal symptoms in users of drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. Some sources recommend lower doses. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, for example, says “ideally, average dosing does not exceed 16 mg” in a guide to the drug’s usage, referring to the sublingual form. (A long-lasting injectable is also available.) Drugs.com says 24 mg is the maximum, and “higher doses have not shown a clinical advantage.

However, some emergency departments have begun providing doses up to 28 mg or higher amid the increased use of the powerful opioid fentanyl. “There are mountains of evidence demonstrating the safety of higher doses at 32 mg, and even several-fold higher than that,” study coauthor Phillip Summers MD, MPH, medical director of the harm-reduction organization Safer Alternatives Thru Networking and Education, Sacramento, Calif., said in an interview. “The question is: Is there clinical benefit to these higher doses?”
 

‘Significantly higher’ retention

For the new study, researchers tracked 328 patients who were treated for opioid use disorder at the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento from 2010 to 2017. They were followed until 2022. Their average age was 36, 37.2% were female, 75.0% were White, and 24.1% had a history of overdose.

Clinicians titrated up the doses of buprenorphine to address withdrawal and craving. Five patients never went past 4 mg, and two of them stayed in treatment for a year. Nine of 19 who went up to 8 mg stayed in treatment for 1 year, and 4 of 21 did among those who reached 12 mg.

“Our data suggest that the highest rate of patient dropout is at the beginning of treatment, and that there is significantly higher treatment retention in patients on greater than 24 mg or higher of buprenorphine,” the researchers wrote.

Mr. Gilbert said clinicians start at 8 mg the first day in patients who haven’t taken buprenorphine before, then they go to 16 mg the second day. “We then reevaluate in at least 1 week, oftentimes sooner if the patient’s opioid craving is uncontrolled, and determine if 16 mg is too low, too high, or the correct dosage for the patient.”

If a dose of over 32 mg is needed, clinicians turn to the long-lasting injectable form of the drug, study coauthor Neil Flynn MD, MPH, former medical director of the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento, said in an interview. “We controlled craving with this form for every patient that did not have opioid craving relief with 32 mg. We believe this form achieved opioid craving cessation due to increased buprenorphine blood levels and increased ratio of unmetabolized buprenorphine to metabolized buprenorphine in our patients.”

According to Dr. Summers, it’s clear that too-low doses hurt the recovery process. “If we prescribe subtherapeutic doses of buprenorphine, our patients will experience opioid craving, which leads to treatment dropout and most likely to relapse. Higher doses of buprenorphine are more likely to cease opioid cravings, leading patients to remain in treatment for longer periods of time.”

Mr. Gilbert said buprenorphine has few side effects, which include decreased libido and hot flashes in both men and women. Testosterone therapy can relieve these symptoms in men, he said, but “unfortunately, we do not have any good medications for reversing this side effect in women. Further research should investigate eliminating this side effect in women.”

Mr. Gilbert declined to comment on the extra cost of higher doses since that is outside the scope of the study.
 

Medication is the ‘star’

In an interview, addiction specialist Dave Cundiff, MD, MPH, of Ilwaco, Wash., praised the study and agreed with its conclusions about the value of high doses of buprenorphine.

“They’re confirming what the science has already shown, but the world does not accept,” he said, adding that “for opioid use disorder, the medication is the star of the show, although counseling is a necessary adjunct for some patients.”

Dr. Cundiff said he’s coauthored a pending review article that finds that studies support higher doses of buprenorphine.

MaryAnne Murray, DNP, EdD, MBA, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner who’s married to Dr. Cundiff, said in an interview that the evolution of the opioid epidemic supports the use of higher doses. “The old way we used to do with heroin users was to wait until they’re in moderate withdrawal, and then start up buprenorphine, usually slowly. With fentanyl, it takes longer, and the wait is often less bearable – unbearable for many people.”

Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento funded the study. The authors, Dr. Cundiff, and Dr. Murray have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new study from an addiction clinic adds to the growing evidence that higher early doses of buprenorphine are advisable in certain patients with opioid use disorder. Eighty-five percent of patients who were titrated up to 32 mg remained in treatment for 1 year vs. 22% of those who never went higher than 16 mg, and those on higher doses stayed in treatment 3.83 times longer than those who didn’t.

“Simply put, we demonstrated better retention in treatment if patients were given higher buprenorphine doses when they complained of opioid craving,” said Andrew Gilbert, a medical student at California Northstate University, Elk Grove, Calif. He is lead author of a poster presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

There’s an ongoing debate over ideal doses of buprenorphine (Suboxone), an opioid that’s used to help treat withdrawal symptoms in users of drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. Some sources recommend lower doses. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, for example, says “ideally, average dosing does not exceed 16 mg” in a guide to the drug’s usage, referring to the sublingual form. (A long-lasting injectable is also available.) Drugs.com says 24 mg is the maximum, and “higher doses have not shown a clinical advantage.

However, some emergency departments have begun providing doses up to 28 mg or higher amid the increased use of the powerful opioid fentanyl. “There are mountains of evidence demonstrating the safety of higher doses at 32 mg, and even several-fold higher than that,” study coauthor Phillip Summers MD, MPH, medical director of the harm-reduction organization Safer Alternatives Thru Networking and Education, Sacramento, Calif., said in an interview. “The question is: Is there clinical benefit to these higher doses?”
 

‘Significantly higher’ retention

For the new study, researchers tracked 328 patients who were treated for opioid use disorder at the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento from 2010 to 2017. They were followed until 2022. Their average age was 36, 37.2% were female, 75.0% were White, and 24.1% had a history of overdose.

Clinicians titrated up the doses of buprenorphine to address withdrawal and craving. Five patients never went past 4 mg, and two of them stayed in treatment for a year. Nine of 19 who went up to 8 mg stayed in treatment for 1 year, and 4 of 21 did among those who reached 12 mg.

“Our data suggest that the highest rate of patient dropout is at the beginning of treatment, and that there is significantly higher treatment retention in patients on greater than 24 mg or higher of buprenorphine,” the researchers wrote.

Mr. Gilbert said clinicians start at 8 mg the first day in patients who haven’t taken buprenorphine before, then they go to 16 mg the second day. “We then reevaluate in at least 1 week, oftentimes sooner if the patient’s opioid craving is uncontrolled, and determine if 16 mg is too low, too high, or the correct dosage for the patient.”

If a dose of over 32 mg is needed, clinicians turn to the long-lasting injectable form of the drug, study coauthor Neil Flynn MD, MPH, former medical director of the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento, said in an interview. “We controlled craving with this form for every patient that did not have opioid craving relief with 32 mg. We believe this form achieved opioid craving cessation due to increased buprenorphine blood levels and increased ratio of unmetabolized buprenorphine to metabolized buprenorphine in our patients.”

According to Dr. Summers, it’s clear that too-low doses hurt the recovery process. “If we prescribe subtherapeutic doses of buprenorphine, our patients will experience opioid craving, which leads to treatment dropout and most likely to relapse. Higher doses of buprenorphine are more likely to cease opioid cravings, leading patients to remain in treatment for longer periods of time.”

Mr. Gilbert said buprenorphine has few side effects, which include decreased libido and hot flashes in both men and women. Testosterone therapy can relieve these symptoms in men, he said, but “unfortunately, we do not have any good medications for reversing this side effect in women. Further research should investigate eliminating this side effect in women.”

Mr. Gilbert declined to comment on the extra cost of higher doses since that is outside the scope of the study.
 

Medication is the ‘star’

In an interview, addiction specialist Dave Cundiff, MD, MPH, of Ilwaco, Wash., praised the study and agreed with its conclusions about the value of high doses of buprenorphine.

“They’re confirming what the science has already shown, but the world does not accept,” he said, adding that “for opioid use disorder, the medication is the star of the show, although counseling is a necessary adjunct for some patients.”

Dr. Cundiff said he’s coauthored a pending review article that finds that studies support higher doses of buprenorphine.

MaryAnne Murray, DNP, EdD, MBA, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner who’s married to Dr. Cundiff, said in an interview that the evolution of the opioid epidemic supports the use of higher doses. “The old way we used to do with heroin users was to wait until they’re in moderate withdrawal, and then start up buprenorphine, usually slowly. With fentanyl, it takes longer, and the wait is often less bearable – unbearable for many people.”

Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento funded the study. The authors, Dr. Cundiff, and Dr. Murray have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new study from an addiction clinic adds to the growing evidence that higher early doses of buprenorphine are advisable in certain patients with opioid use disorder. Eighty-five percent of patients who were titrated up to 32 mg remained in treatment for 1 year vs. 22% of those who never went higher than 16 mg, and those on higher doses stayed in treatment 3.83 times longer than those who didn’t.

“Simply put, we demonstrated better retention in treatment if patients were given higher buprenorphine doses when they complained of opioid craving,” said Andrew Gilbert, a medical student at California Northstate University, Elk Grove, Calif. He is lead author of a poster presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

There’s an ongoing debate over ideal doses of buprenorphine (Suboxone), an opioid that’s used to help treat withdrawal symptoms in users of drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. Some sources recommend lower doses. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, for example, says “ideally, average dosing does not exceed 16 mg” in a guide to the drug’s usage, referring to the sublingual form. (A long-lasting injectable is also available.) Drugs.com says 24 mg is the maximum, and “higher doses have not shown a clinical advantage.

However, some emergency departments have begun providing doses up to 28 mg or higher amid the increased use of the powerful opioid fentanyl. “There are mountains of evidence demonstrating the safety of higher doses at 32 mg, and even several-fold higher than that,” study coauthor Phillip Summers MD, MPH, medical director of the harm-reduction organization Safer Alternatives Thru Networking and Education, Sacramento, Calif., said in an interview. “The question is: Is there clinical benefit to these higher doses?”
 

‘Significantly higher’ retention

For the new study, researchers tracked 328 patients who were treated for opioid use disorder at the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento from 2010 to 2017. They were followed until 2022. Their average age was 36, 37.2% were female, 75.0% were White, and 24.1% had a history of overdose.

Clinicians titrated up the doses of buprenorphine to address withdrawal and craving. Five patients never went past 4 mg, and two of them stayed in treatment for a year. Nine of 19 who went up to 8 mg stayed in treatment for 1 year, and 4 of 21 did among those who reached 12 mg.

“Our data suggest that the highest rate of patient dropout is at the beginning of treatment, and that there is significantly higher treatment retention in patients on greater than 24 mg or higher of buprenorphine,” the researchers wrote.

Mr. Gilbert said clinicians start at 8 mg the first day in patients who haven’t taken buprenorphine before, then they go to 16 mg the second day. “We then reevaluate in at least 1 week, oftentimes sooner if the patient’s opioid craving is uncontrolled, and determine if 16 mg is too low, too high, or the correct dosage for the patient.”

If a dose of over 32 mg is needed, clinicians turn to the long-lasting injectable form of the drug, study coauthor Neil Flynn MD, MPH, former medical director of the Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento, said in an interview. “We controlled craving with this form for every patient that did not have opioid craving relief with 32 mg. We believe this form achieved opioid craving cessation due to increased buprenorphine blood levels and increased ratio of unmetabolized buprenorphine to metabolized buprenorphine in our patients.”

According to Dr. Summers, it’s clear that too-low doses hurt the recovery process. “If we prescribe subtherapeutic doses of buprenorphine, our patients will experience opioid craving, which leads to treatment dropout and most likely to relapse. Higher doses of buprenorphine are more likely to cease opioid cravings, leading patients to remain in treatment for longer periods of time.”

Mr. Gilbert said buprenorphine has few side effects, which include decreased libido and hot flashes in both men and women. Testosterone therapy can relieve these symptoms in men, he said, but “unfortunately, we do not have any good medications for reversing this side effect in women. Further research should investigate eliminating this side effect in women.”

Mr. Gilbert declined to comment on the extra cost of higher doses since that is outside the scope of the study.
 

Medication is the ‘star’

In an interview, addiction specialist Dave Cundiff, MD, MPH, of Ilwaco, Wash., praised the study and agreed with its conclusions about the value of high doses of buprenorphine.

“They’re confirming what the science has already shown, but the world does not accept,” he said, adding that “for opioid use disorder, the medication is the star of the show, although counseling is a necessary adjunct for some patients.”

Dr. Cundiff said he’s coauthored a pending review article that finds that studies support higher doses of buprenorphine.

MaryAnne Murray, DNP, EdD, MBA, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner who’s married to Dr. Cundiff, said in an interview that the evolution of the opioid epidemic supports the use of higher doses. “The old way we used to do with heroin users was to wait until they’re in moderate withdrawal, and then start up buprenorphine, usually slowly. With fentanyl, it takes longer, and the wait is often less bearable – unbearable for many people.”

Transitions Buprenorphine Clinic of Sacramento funded the study. The authors, Dr. Cundiff, and Dr. Murray have no disclosures.

Suicidal ideation peaks during the winter but suicide attempts are most common in late spring and early summer in the early hours of the morning, new research shows.

In addition, the results from Harvard University’s Project Implicit Health also show that people are most likely to make an attempt at suicide between 4 and 6 a.m.

“No research has demonstrated a peak in suicidal ideation in winter until our paper,” study investigator Brian O’Shea, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Nottingham, England, told this news organization.

“Most people incorrectly assume that suicide behaviours peak in winter and are surprised, as I was, when learning about this phenomenon, that suicide actually peaks in spring/early summer,” he added.

However, at least one expert cautioned that the database, which comprises mostly responses from younger women, doesn’t capture responses from those who are most likely to attempt suicide: older men with substance abuse.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

New insight into suicide risk

Previous studies examining the seasonality of suicides and suicide attempts have reported a peak in spring and early summer, but there has been very little information about why this may be, the investigators noted.

Dr. O’Shea and his colleague from the University of Amsterdam, René Freichel, mined one of the databases from Project Implicit Health, which contains self-report measures on suicidal ideation, self-harm, and past suicide attempts, as well as respondents’ implicit biases on these topics.

The analysis included data from 10,000 respondents living in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada provided between April 2012 and November 2018.

The sample was predominantly young and female, with 38% (3,247) of the sample reporting that they had made at least one suicide attempt.

The researchers found a peak in negative mood and desire to die occurring in December, especially among those who reported attempting suicide (P ≤ .001)

Suicidal ideation peaked approximately 3-4 months before the annual seasonal crest of suicide attempts in early spring and summer.

“Affected individuals may become severely depressed and experience a lack of energy throughout the winter months. Essentially, this period may put them below a threshold of severe suicide risk as the high level of suicidal ideation coincides with a low level of energy,” said Dr. O’Shea.

When the days get longer, brighter, and warmer, these changes likely improve an individuals’ mood, he explained. “Hence, the most at-risk individuals become slightly less depressed and may gain more energy to contemplate and plan their method to attempt suicide,” Dr. O’Shea noted.

A major limitation of the study is that all responses included in analysis were based on self-report.

To confirm the findings, future research should include ecological momentary assessment, which involves using a large community sample to question participants about suicidal intent at various time points, along with real-time monitoring of vital signs, said Dr. O’Shea.

Ideally, the investigators noted, the study’s findings will inform clinician assessments of patients who are at risk for suicide.
 

A research gap?

Commenting on the findings, Justin Shuster, MD, MPH, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of two psychiatric units at Western Psychiatric Hospital, noted that the database used in the study did not include responses from those who were most likely to attempt or commit suicide: older men with a history of substance abuse, who require social supports, and who have a family history of suicide.

Though Dr. Shuster agreed with Dr. O’Shea about the possibility that spring brought energy to a desire to take one’s life, he had another theory.

“When people are depressed in the winter, they expect to feel better with the advent of the warmer weather in spring. When they don’t feel better, they may think to themselves, ‘If I’m going to feel like this forever, I may as well follow through with these plans,’ ” he said.

As for the early morning attempts, he noted that 4-6 a.m. is often when people are alone, and there are fewer distractions.

“The other thing I see a great deal of clinically is intoxication,” said Dr. Shuster. “Either intoxication with substances or alcohol, or the fact that intoxication is waning at those early morning hours, and people are becoming desperate as they face a new day,” he said.

The study was funded by a German Academic Exchange Service Scholarship and an EU Horizon 2020 Fellowship. Dr. O’Shea reports being an unpaid member of Project Implicit’s scientific advisory board and is on the executive committee of Project Implicit Health.

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

Suicidal ideation peaks during the winter but suicide attempts are most common in late spring and early summer in the early hours of the morning, new research shows.

In addition, the results from Harvard University’s Project Implicit Health also show that people are most likely to make an attempt at suicide between 4 and 6 a.m.

“No research has demonstrated a peak in suicidal ideation in winter until our paper,” study investigator Brian O’Shea, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Nottingham, England, told this news organization.

“Most people incorrectly assume that suicide behaviours peak in winter and are surprised, as I was, when learning about this phenomenon, that suicide actually peaks in spring/early summer,” he added.

However, at least one expert cautioned that the database, which comprises mostly responses from younger women, doesn’t capture responses from those who are most likely to attempt suicide: older men with substance abuse.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

New insight into suicide risk

Previous studies examining the seasonality of suicides and suicide attempts have reported a peak in spring and early summer, but there has been very little information about why this may be, the investigators noted.

Dr. O’Shea and his colleague from the University of Amsterdam, René Freichel, mined one of the databases from Project Implicit Health, which contains self-report measures on suicidal ideation, self-harm, and past suicide attempts, as well as respondents’ implicit biases on these topics.

The analysis included data from 10,000 respondents living in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada provided between April 2012 and November 2018.

The sample was predominantly young and female, with 38% (3,247) of the sample reporting that they had made at least one suicide attempt.

The researchers found a peak in negative mood and desire to die occurring in December, especially among those who reported attempting suicide (P ≤ .001)

Suicidal ideation peaked approximately 3-4 months before the annual seasonal crest of suicide attempts in early spring and summer.

“Affected individuals may become severely depressed and experience a lack of energy throughout the winter months. Essentially, this period may put them below a threshold of severe suicide risk as the high level of suicidal ideation coincides with a low level of energy,” said Dr. O’Shea.

When the days get longer, brighter, and warmer, these changes likely improve an individuals’ mood, he explained. “Hence, the most at-risk individuals become slightly less depressed and may gain more energy to contemplate and plan their method to attempt suicide,” Dr. O’Shea noted.

A major limitation of the study is that all responses included in analysis were based on self-report.

To confirm the findings, future research should include ecological momentary assessment, which involves using a large community sample to question participants about suicidal intent at various time points, along with real-time monitoring of vital signs, said Dr. O’Shea.

Ideally, the investigators noted, the study’s findings will inform clinician assessments of patients who are at risk for suicide.
 

A research gap?

Commenting on the findings, Justin Shuster, MD, MPH, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of two psychiatric units at Western Psychiatric Hospital, noted that the database used in the study did not include responses from those who were most likely to attempt or commit suicide: older men with a history of substance abuse, who require social supports, and who have a family history of suicide.

Though Dr. Shuster agreed with Dr. O’Shea about the possibility that spring brought energy to a desire to take one’s life, he had another theory.

“When people are depressed in the winter, they expect to feel better with the advent of the warmer weather in spring. When they don’t feel better, they may think to themselves, ‘If I’m going to feel like this forever, I may as well follow through with these plans,’ ” he said.

As for the early morning attempts, he noted that 4-6 a.m. is often when people are alone, and there are fewer distractions.

“The other thing I see a great deal of clinically is intoxication,” said Dr. Shuster. “Either intoxication with substances or alcohol, or the fact that intoxication is waning at those early morning hours, and people are becoming desperate as they face a new day,” he said.

The study was funded by a German Academic Exchange Service Scholarship and an EU Horizon 2020 Fellowship. Dr. O’Shea reports being an unpaid member of Project Implicit’s scientific advisory board and is on the executive committee of Project Implicit Health.

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

Suicidal ideation peaks during the winter but suicide attempts are most common in late spring and early summer in the early hours of the morning, new research shows.

In addition, the results from Harvard University’s Project Implicit Health also show that people are most likely to make an attempt at suicide between 4 and 6 a.m.

“No research has demonstrated a peak in suicidal ideation in winter until our paper,” study investigator Brian O’Shea, PhD, assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Nottingham, England, told this news organization.

“Most people incorrectly assume that suicide behaviours peak in winter and are surprised, as I was, when learning about this phenomenon, that suicide actually peaks in spring/early summer,” he added.

However, at least one expert cautioned that the database, which comprises mostly responses from younger women, doesn’t capture responses from those who are most likely to attempt suicide: older men with substance abuse.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

New insight into suicide risk

Previous studies examining the seasonality of suicides and suicide attempts have reported a peak in spring and early summer, but there has been very little information about why this may be, the investigators noted.

Dr. O’Shea and his colleague from the University of Amsterdam, René Freichel, mined one of the databases from Project Implicit Health, which contains self-report measures on suicidal ideation, self-harm, and past suicide attempts, as well as respondents’ implicit biases on these topics.

The analysis included data from 10,000 respondents living in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada provided between April 2012 and November 2018.

The sample was predominantly young and female, with 38% (3,247) of the sample reporting that they had made at least one suicide attempt.

The researchers found a peak in negative mood and desire to die occurring in December, especially among those who reported attempting suicide (P ≤ .001)

Suicidal ideation peaked approximately 3-4 months before the annual seasonal crest of suicide attempts in early spring and summer.

“Affected individuals may become severely depressed and experience a lack of energy throughout the winter months. Essentially, this period may put them below a threshold of severe suicide risk as the high level of suicidal ideation coincides with a low level of energy,” said Dr. O’Shea.

When the days get longer, brighter, and warmer, these changes likely improve an individuals’ mood, he explained. “Hence, the most at-risk individuals become slightly less depressed and may gain more energy to contemplate and plan their method to attempt suicide,” Dr. O’Shea noted.

A major limitation of the study is that all responses included in analysis were based on self-report.

To confirm the findings, future research should include ecological momentary assessment, which involves using a large community sample to question participants about suicidal intent at various time points, along with real-time monitoring of vital signs, said Dr. O’Shea.

Ideally, the investigators noted, the study’s findings will inform clinician assessments of patients who are at risk for suicide.
 

A research gap?

Commenting on the findings, Justin Shuster, MD, MPH, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of two psychiatric units at Western Psychiatric Hospital, noted that the database used in the study did not include responses from those who were most likely to attempt or commit suicide: older men with a history of substance abuse, who require social supports, and who have a family history of suicide.

Though Dr. Shuster agreed with Dr. O’Shea about the possibility that spring brought energy to a desire to take one’s life, he had another theory.

“When people are depressed in the winter, they expect to feel better with the advent of the warmer weather in spring. When they don’t feel better, they may think to themselves, ‘If I’m going to feel like this forever, I may as well follow through with these plans,’ ” he said.

As for the early morning attempts, he noted that 4-6 a.m. is often when people are alone, and there are fewer distractions.

“The other thing I see a great deal of clinically is intoxication,” said Dr. Shuster. “Either intoxication with substances or alcohol, or the fact that intoxication is waning at those early morning hours, and people are becoming desperate as they face a new day,” he said.

The study was funded by a German Academic Exchange Service Scholarship and an EU Horizon 2020 Fellowship. Dr. O’Shea reports being an unpaid member of Project Implicit’s scientific advisory board and is on the executive committee of Project Implicit Health.

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

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

At the end of 2022, the European Medicines Agency’s Emergency Task Force warned European regulatory bodies, governments, and doctors that monoclonal antibodies authorized for COVID-19 are unlikely to be effective against emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2. Antiviral drugs remain available but have many limitations. And, of course, there are still vaccines, which can significantly reduce (but not remove) the risk of severe cases and decrease the number of deaths, although they have lost the efficacy that they once had in countering the original virus.

Research therefore continues. Immunologists continue to search for new targets to synthesize broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treating or preventing the infection. These results could also lead to new vaccines that induce longer-lasting immunity not only against the thousands of subvariants and recombinant versions of SARS-CoV-2 being identified around the world, but also possibly against other coronaviruses that could emerge in the coming years. A study conducted at Stanford (Calif.) University and published in the journal Science Translational Medicine has afforded a glimmer of hope by discovering the broadly neutralizing efficacy of some antibodies produced by macaque monkeys in response to vaccination with AS03 (squalene) adjuvanted monovalent subunit vaccines.

The speed with which the virus continues to evolve has rendered the plan for annual vaccine updates, which initially was envisioned early in the pandemic, unfeasible for the time being. In 2020, scientists were considering updating vaccines annually based on the prevalent variants of the disease, similar to the approach to the flu. Perhaps that day will come, but in the meantime, laboratories are pursuing other routes: finding spike epitopes that are preserved more than others each time the virus evolves or focusing on other virus proteins that still manage to induce a neutralizing antibody response.

Eventually, artificial intelligence might be able to custom design monoclonal antibodies that are even more effective than natural ones. Or researchers could completely change tack and shift their attention to the host, rather than the virus itself.

This is the approach taken by one study published in Nature Microbiology, which starts from a simple assumption: SARS-CoV-2 continues to modify its spike protein because of the evolutionary pressure of the antibodies produced by millions of infected people, but all these variants and subvariants, both present and future, enter cells by binding – not solely, but mostly – to the ACE2 receptor. Instead of neutralizing the virus, why not try to block its access to the cells occupying its route in? In this way, we could also be ready for future emerging sarbecoviruses that will have a spike sequence that cannot yet be predicted.

Researchers at Rockefeller University, New York, have generated six human monoclonal antibodies that bind to the ACE2 receptor, rather than to the spike, preventing infection by all sarbecoviruses tested, even at low concentrations, including the virus that originated in Wuhan, China; the aggressive Delta variant; and various forms of Omicron.

The monoclonal antibodies bind to the ACE2 receptor at a part of the protein that is distal to the active enzyme portion that converts angiotensin and does not modify its expression on the cell surface. Therefore, no adverse effects are expected at this level. In animal models, these monoclonal antibodies succeed in stopping the infection. Moving into the clinical phase will be needed to find out if it will be possible to create products adapted to preventing and treating all SARS-CoV-2 variants, and perhaps also the next coronavirus large enough to spill over into a new epidemic that threatens the human race.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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

While physicians are getting less of a Medicare pay cut than they thought this year (Congress voted to cut Medicare payments by 2%, which was less than the expected 8.5%), Medicare still pays physicians only 80% of what many third-party insurers pay.

Moreover, those reimbursements are often slow to arrive, and the paperwork is burdensome. In fact, about 65% of doctors won’t accept new Medicare patients, down from 71% just 5 years ago, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023.

Worse, inflation makes continuous cuts feel even steeper and trickles down to physicians and their patients as more and more doctors become disenchanted and consider dropping Medicare.
 

Medicare at a glance

Medicare pays physicians about 80% of the “reasonable charge” for covered services. At the same time, private insurers pay nearly double Medicare rates for hospital services.

The Medicare fee schedule is released each year. Physicians who accept Medicare can choose to be a “participating provider” by agreeing to the fee schedule and to not charging more than this amount. “Nonparticipating” providers can charge up to 15% more. Physicians can also opt out of Medicare entirely.

The earliest that physicians receive their payment is 14 days after electronic filing to 28 days after paper filing, but it often can take months.

Physicians lose an estimated 7.3% of Medicare claims to billing problems. With private insurers, an estimated 4.8% is lost.

In 2000, there were 50 million Medicare enrollees; it is projected that by 2050, there will be 87 million enrollees.
 

Why are doctors disenchanted?

“When Medicare started, the concept of the program was good,” said Rahul Gupta, MD, a geriatrician in Westport, Conn., and chief of internal medicine at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, Conn. “However, over the years, with new developments in medicine and the explosion of the Medicare-eligible population, the program hasn’t kept up with coverages.” In addition, Medicare’s behemoth power as a government-run agency has ramifications that trickle down irrespective of a patient’s insurance carrier.

“Medicare sets the tone on price and reimbursement, and everyone follows suit,” Dr. Gupta said. “It’s a race to the bottom.”

“The program is great for patients when people need hospitalizations, skilled nursing, and physical therapy,” Dr. Gupta said. “But it’s not great about keeping people healthier and maintaining function via preventive treatments.” Many private insurers must become more adept at that too.

For instance, Dr. Gupta laments the lack of coverage for hearing aids, something his patients could greatly benefit from. Thanks to the Build Back Better bill, coverage of hearing aids will begin in 2024. But, again, most private insurers don’t cover hearing aids either. Some Medicare Advantage plans do.

Medicare doesn’t cover eye health (except for eye exams for diabetes patients), which is an issue for Daniel Laroche, MD, a glaucoma specialist and clinical associate professor of ophthalmology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

“I get paid less for Medicare patients by about 20% because of ‘lesser-of’ payments,” said Dr. Laroche. For example, as per Medicare, after patients meet their Part B deductible, they pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for glaucoma testing. “It would be nice to get the full amount for Medicare patients.”

“In addition, getting approvals for testing takes time and exhaustive amounts of paperwork, says Adeeti Gupta, MD, a gynecologist and founder of Walk In GYN Care in New York.

“Medicare only covers gynecologist visits every 2 years after the age of 65,” she said. “Any additional testing requires authorization, and Medicare doesn’t cover hormone replacement at all, which really makes me crazy. They will cover Viagra for men, but they won’t cover HRT, which prolongs life, reduces dementia, and prevents bone loss.”

While these three doctors find Medicare lacking in its coverage of their specialty, and their reimbursements are too low, many physicians also find fault regarding Medicare billing, which can put their patients at risk.
 

The problem with Medicare billing

Because claims are processed by Medicare administrative contractors, it can take about a month for the approval or denial process and for doctors to receive reimbursement.

Prior authorizations, especially with Medicare Advantage plans, are also problematic. For example, one 2022 study found that 18% of payment denials were for services that met coverage and billing rules.

Worse, all of this jockeying for coverage takes time. The average health care provider spends 16.4 hours a week on paperwork and on securing prior authorizations to cover services, according to the American Medical Association.

“A good 40% of my time is exclusively Medicare red tape paperwork,” Rahul Gupta says. “There’s a reason I spend 2-3 hours a night catching up on that stuff.”

Not only does this lead to burnout, but it also means that most physicians must hire an administrator to help with the paperwork.

In comparison, industry averages put the denial rate for all Medicare and private insurance claims at 20%.

“Excessive authorization controls required by health insurers are persistently responsible for serious harm to physician practices and patients when necessary medical care is delayed, denied, or disrupted in an attempt to increase profits,” Dr. Laroche said.

“Our office spends nearly 2 days per week on prior authorizations, creating costly administrative burdens.”

For Adeeti Gupta, the frustrations with Medicare have continued to mount. “We’re just at a dead end,” she said. “Authorizations keep getting denied, and the back-end paperwork is only increasing for us.”
 

Will more doctors opt out of Medicare?

When doctors don’t accept Medicare, it hurts the patients using it, especially patients who have selected either a Medicare Advantage plan or who become eligible for Medicare at age 65 only to find that fewer doctors take the government-sponsored insurance than in the past.

As of 2020, only 1% of nonpediatric physicians had formally opted out, per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Psychiatrists account for the largest share of opt-outs (7.2%).

“Unfortunately, most doctors outside of hospital-based practices will reach a point when they can’t deal with Medicare paperwork, so they’ll stop taking it,” Rahul Gupta says.

A coalition of 120 physicians’ groups, including the American Medical Association, disputes that Medicare is paying a fair reimbursement rate to physicians and calls for an overhaul in how they adjust physician pay.

“Nothing much changes no matter how much the AMA shouts,” Rahul Gupta said in an interview.
 

What can doctors do

Prescription prices are another example of the challenges posed by Medicare. When prescriptions are denied because of Medicare’s medigap (or donut hole) program, which puts a cap on medication coverage, which was $4,660 in 2023, Dr. Gupta says she turns to alternative ways to fill them.

“I’ve been telling patients to pay out of pocket and use GoodRx, or we get medications compounded,” she said. “That’s cheaper. For example, for HRT, GoodRx can bring down the cost 40% to 50%.”

The American Medical Association as well as 150 other medical advocacy groups continue to urge Congress to work with the physician community to address the systematic problems within Medicare, especially reimbursement.

Despite the daily challenges, Rahul Gupta says he remains committed to caring for his patients.

“I want to care for the elderly, especially because they already have very few physicians to take care of them, and fortunately, I have a good practice with other coverages,” he said. “I can’t give up.”

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