Neurology Reviews

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — Unlike a first trial of PB&TURSO, which led to regulatory approval of this combination therapy in 2022, a second larger and longer multicenter placebo-controlled study was unable to show any significant benefit on primary or secondary endpoints.

As a result, “PB&TURSO is no longer available for new patients in the United States of Canada,” reported Leonard H. van den Berg, MD, PhD, Direction of the Netherlands ALS Center, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Although the drug is now being withdrawn, patients on therapy as of April 4 who wish to stay on treatment “can be transitioned to a free drug program,” added Dr. van den Berg, who presented the results of this new trial, called PHOENIX, at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

PB&TURSO, marketed as Relyvrio (Amylyx), is a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate (PB) and taurursodiol (TAURO). Having shown promise for preventing neuronal death in experimental and early human studies, it was approved on the basis of the of the double-blind multicenter CENTAUR trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022.
 

ALSFRS-R Served as Primary Endpoint in Both Trials

In CENTAUR, like the newly completed PHOENIX, the primary outcome was rate of decline in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) over 24 weeks. On this endpoint, the rate of change for those randomized to PB&TAURO was –1.24 points per month versus –1.66 points per month on placebo, a difference of 0.42 points that met statistical significance (P = .02).

The CENTAUR trial, which enrolled 177 patients, also showed no differences between those in the experimental and placebo arms for any of the secondary endpoints, including time to tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, or death.

In the much larger and longer PHOENIX trial, 664 ALS patients were randomized in a 3:2 ratio to PB&TURSO or placebo. Fifty-seven percent in each group completed 48 weeks of follow-up. The proportions of patients who withdrew from the study were similar across the reasons, such as adverse events and disease progression.

For the ALSFRS-R primary endpoint at 48 weeks, the decline in both groups was essentially linear and almost completely overlapped with a final change from baseline of –14.98 points in the PB&TURSO group that was statistically indistinguishable from the –15.32 point-change (P = .667) in the placebo group, Dr. van den Berg reported.

Similarly, there were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mean change in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) scores or mean change in slow vital capacity (SVC) when compared to baseline or between arms.

As in CENTAUR, the most common side effects associated with PB&TURSO were gastrointestinal, particularly diarrhea (31% vs 10%), but serious adverse events were slightly less common on PT&TURSO (26% vs 28%), and Dr. van der Berg characterized the drug as “generally well tolerated.”
 

Differences Between Two Trials Were Evaluated

The entry criteria for PHOENIX trial differed modestly from those of the CENTAUR trial. Clinically definite or probable ALS was required in only two or more body regions versus three or more in the earlier trial. Patients were also allowed entry with SVC greater than 60% versus greater than 55% for CENTAUR and have had a longer period since symptom onset (< 24 vs < 18 months). Both studies permitted use of edaravone.

When stratified, patients who entered PHOENIX with CENTAUR-like entry criteria had a similar response to PB&TURSO relative to those who did not. Similarly, there were no meaningful differences between those enrolled in European study sites versus elsewhere. Background edaravone versus no edaravone also had no apparent effect on outcomes.

An ongoing open-label extension of the PHOENIX trial is still collecting data on survival, which was a prespecified endpoint. This endpoint, which requires 70% or more of patients to have died or have been followed for 3 or more years since the last patient was randomized, is not expected until February 2026.

Although “there are further biomarker and subgroup analyses planned,” Dr. van den Berg said that the neutral results of the PHOENIX trial, which he characterized as the largest controlled trial in ALS ever conducted, do not encourage further studies with this agent.
 

‘Unfortunate’ Results

Robert Bowser, PhD, chief scientific officer and chair of the department of translational neuroscience, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, called the results “unfortunate.” Just last year, Dr. Bowser published a study showing a reduction in the concentration of biomarkers associated with ALS among patients in the CENTAUR study who were treated with PB&TURSO.

Moreover, the reduction in the serum concentrations of the biomarkers he studied, which included C-reactive protein and YKL-40, correlated with ALSFRS-R total score.

In that paper, he speculated that CRP and YKL-40 might emerge as treatment-sensitive biomarkers in ALS “pending further confirmatory studies, but Dr. Bowser indicated that the PHOENIX study has prompted the correct response from the manufacturers.

“Credit should be given to the leaders at Amylyx for following through with their promise to remove the drug from the market if the PHOENIX study did not confirm the results from the CENTAUR study,” he said.

However, he believes that the study will still have value for better understanding ALS.

“As we move forward, it will be interesting to see biomarker data generated from the biosamples collected during the PHOENIX trial to learn more about treatment impact on biomarkers within those that received the drug,” he said. “I am sure we will continue to learn more from the PHOENIX trial.”

Dr. van den Berg has financial relationships with approximately 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Amylyx, which provided funding for the PHOENIX trial. Dr. Bowser reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

DENVER — When combined with rHuPh20, a recombinant DNA-derived human hyaluronidase, efgartigimod, promises a new treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), according to the results of a phase 2 multinational trial, which were reported at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

“Regardless of prior therapy for CIDP, efgartigimod PH20 was associated with a rapid clinical improvement, and clinical responses have been maintained out to 48 weeks,” said Jeffrey A. Allen, MD, an associate professor of neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Efgartigimod, which reduces circulating IgG immunoglobulin, has been available for the treatment of myasthenia gravis since 2021. In a new trial, called ADHERE, the combination of efgartigimod and rHuPH20 (E-PH20) was tested for CIDP, the most common of the chronic immune-mediated inflammatory polyneuropathies.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

ADHERE Called Largest CIDP Trial to Date

In this study, which Dr. Allen called the largest randomized controlled trial ever performed with a CIDP treatment, a run-in stage was required for those candidates who were already on treatment. When these patients went off treatment during this 12-week run-in, clinical deterioration was required to advance to the first of two stages of the trial. Patients with symptomatic CIDP but off treatment at the time of enrollment did not participate in the run-in.

After the run-in, patients who advanced to stage A received 1000 mg of E-PH20 open label for 12 weeks. Of those on treatment prior to the run-in, about half were receiving intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Almost all the remainder had been receiving corticosteroids. About 30% had been off treatment and entered stage A without participating in the run in.

The primary endpoint of stage A was the percentage of patients with evidence of clinical improvement (ECI). Patients who participated in the run-in were allowed to resume their prior treatment for stage A and the subsequent blinded stage B. Stage A was event driven so that it was closed once 88 events were reached,

The ECI endpoint was met by 66.5% of the patients, who thereby met eligibility for the randomized stage B. As the study design excluded those who achieved clinical improvement after the 88-event limit was reached, they were not included among responders. Had they been included, Dr. Allen said that the primary endpoint of stage A would have been reached by 70.4%.

The patterns of improvement in stage A were similar across type of prior CIDP treatment, including no treatment, according to Dr. Allen, who noted that 39.8% of those enrolled in stage A met the primary endpoint within 4 weeks.

There were 322 patients in stage A. Of these, 211 enrolled in stage B. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1000 mg of E-PH20 or placebo administered weekly by subcutaneous injection. Of those eligible for stage B, 40% had not participated in the run-in.
 

aINCAT Provided Primary Endpoint for CIDP Trial

For stage B, the primary endpoint was time from baseline to a clinically meaningful limitation of activity. This was evaluated with the adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (aINCAT) disability score.

By the end of 48 weeks of treatment, 27.9% had relapsed on E-PH20 according to the aiNCAT disability score versus 53.6% on those on placebo. By hazard ratio (HR 0.39), the active treatment arm was associated with a highly significant 61% (P = .000039) greater likelihood of avoiding relapse.

When stratified by a background of no therapy, IVIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIg), or corticosteroids, all groups in the active treatment arm did better in stage B than any group in the placebo arm, according to Dr. Allen.

In the 48-week deterioration curves, sustained control was observed among responders out to the end of controlled study. Although there appeared to be numerical advantage for those on both E-PH20 and corticosteroids, E-PH20 arms with concomitant IVIg, SCIg, or no treatment also showed sustained control without significant differences between them.

On functional aINCAT scores, 80.9% achieved at least a 1-point improvement. The improvement was at least 2 points in 42.7%, at least 3 points in 28.2%, and at least 4 points in 11.8%.
 

E-PH20 Is Characterized as Well Tolerated

Injection site erythema (5.4% vs 0%) and injection site bruising (5.4% vs 0.9%) were more common on E-PH20 than placebo, but there was no difference in serious adverse events, and events possibly related to active treatment, such as headache (3.6% vs. 1.8%) were considered to be of mild to moderate severity.

“The safety profile of efgartigimod plus PH20 was consistent with the safety profile of efgartigimod in other autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Allen said.

The weekly subcutaneous injection can be administered within 90 seconds or less, Dr. Allen said. He called this drug a potential “new therapeutic option to reduce treatment burden in patients with CIDP” if it is approved.

There is a need for new options, according to Brett M. Morrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, and an expert in neuromuscular disorders. Dr. Morrison was not involved in the study.

“Although there are three currently approved treatments — steroids, IVIg, and plasmapheresis, at least 20% of CIDP patients have minimal or no response” to any of these, Dr. Morrison said. He added that many of those who do respond to standard therapies have a substantial side effect burden that has created a need for alternatives.

Based on the data presented so far, which suggest substantial efficacy and a favorable safety profile, efgartigimod, if and when it becomes available, “would be an important new treatment for CIDP,” according to Dr. Morrison.

Dr. Allen has financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies, including Argenx, which provided funding for the ACHIEVE trial. Dr. Morrison reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.

The first peer-reviewed consensus statement on healthcare for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDDs) is meant to start correcting the inequitable access to appropriate care that these children experience compared with their peers without NDDs. The statement was published in Pediatrics.

The disparities in healthcare culture, mindset, and practice often start in childhood for young people with conditions including autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), wrote co–first authors Carol Weitzman, MD, co-director of the Autism Spectrum Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Cy Nadler, PhD, section chief of Autism Psychology at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.

Without better access to safe and appropriate care, people with NDDs experience more seclusion, accidents, restraints, and injury in healthcare encounters, the researchers wrote.
 

‘Accessible, Humane, Effective Care’

“At the heart of this consensus statement is an affirmation that all people are entitled to healthcare that is accessible, humane, and effective,” they wrote.

The consensus statement was developed as part of the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, launched by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. The consensus panel comprised professionals, caregivers, and adults with NDDs. After a 2-day public forum, the consensus panel held a conference and developed a statement on SAFE care, an NDD Health Care Bill of Rights and Transition Considerations. They developed 10 statements across five domains: training; communication; access and planning; diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and anti-ableism; and policy and structural change.
 

Asking the Patient ‘What do You Need?’

One theme in the statement that may have the most impact is “the importance of asking the person in front of you what they need,” and building a care plan around that, said senior author Marilyn Augustyn, MD, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. “The medical community hasn’t done that very well for individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.”

Dr. Weitzman added: “Traditionally in healthcare settings, we’ve asked people to check their disabilities at the door.” Many people with neurodevelopmental disabilities often have “invisible disabilities,” she said, explaining that patients may have accommodation needs that aren’t immediately obvious, but could improve their access to care, so asking them what they need is critical.
 

Examples of ‘Ableism’

The consensus statement also calls attention to structural “ableism” or policies or practices that favor able-bodied people over those with disabilities and details the need for more training and changed policies.

The paper gives some examples of ableism, such as inappropriately excluding people with NDDs from research; staff assuming nonspeaking patients have no capacity for communication; or lack of awareness of sensory needs before using cold stethoscopes or flashing direct light into eyes.

Dr. Weitzman says this work is just the beginning of a complex process. It is intended to be the driver for developing curriculum to train all clinicians and others working with patients about neurodevelopmental disabilities. The hope is it will lead to more research to formalize best practices and make policies mandatory rather than optional.

The urgency in highlighting these issues is partly related to the prevalence of children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disabilities, which the paper states is approximately 1 in 6.

But there are personal reasons as well for the team who developed the statement.

“We just believe that it is just a human right,” Dr. Weitzman said. “Having a neurodevelopmental disability does not make you any less entitled to good care. “

Dr. Augustyn added, “The children I’ve had the honor of caring for for the last 30 years deserve all this care and more. I think it’s time.”

This work was supported by the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Research Network and the Association of University Centers on Disability. Dr. Weitzman is a past consultant for Helios/Meliora. The other authors report no relevant financial relationships.