A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

A vegetarian or vegan diet is said to be particularly popular among girls and young women. But despite what some people think, these diets, especially vegan diets, are not automatically healthy. A vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficits as a result of the limited choice of foods. These deficits can cause clinically relevant symptoms if they are not balanced out. One of the things to keep in mind is the need for a sufficient amount of vitamins B₁₂ and B₆, as well as vitamin D, explains nutritional scientist Bettina Dörr, PhD, from Munich, who specializes in how nutritional science is applied in everyday practice.

Vegetarian and vegan diets

According to Dr. Dörr, vegetarian diets can be categorized into the following main types:

• Ovo-lacto vegetarian (excludes meat and fish).
• Ovo vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and dairy products).
• Lacto vegetarian (excludes meat, fish, and eggs).
• Vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, and honey).
• Raw vegan (excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, honey, and heated food).

The following are additional groups:

• Fruitarians want to eat only plant products that do not result in any damage to the plant itself (apples and nuts, for example, but not carrots or potatoes).
• Pescatarians exclude meat but still eat fish or seafood.
• Dirty vegetarians avoid meat and fish but, according to Dr. Dörr, they do not pay particular attention to their diet and eat lots of ready-made and confectionery products.
• Flexitarians value a balanced diet and eat meat or fish in moderation, but not particularly often.

Another diet is the orthorexic diet. Followers of this diet force themselves to have a healthy diet and are afraid of getting sick from unhealthy food. As the nutritional scientist explains, orthorexic persons set their own definitions of what is healthy. While some refrain from certain foods (e.g., household sugar), others eliminate whole food groups and eat nothing but raw food. Compulsive behavior can appear in specific methods of food preparation or adherence to fixed meal schedules.

The overwhelming majority of orthorexic persons are young women. As shown in a study from the University of Göttingen, orthorexic behavior is displayed above all in active women who play sports, particularly high-performance athletes. Children can also be affected by orthorexia if their parents are.

Critical nutrients

When following a vegan diet, it is possible to ingest sufficient critical nutrients, even with plant-based foods, according to Dr. Dörr. The prerequisite for this is good knowledge regarding food and nutrients. However, it is increasingly the case that foods are “simply left out,” without consideration of the consequences. This factor should be considered when providing medical advice.

Some of the important nutrients in this respect are proteins and vitamins B₆, B₁₂, and D.

Proteins

Girls need 0.9 g/kg per day of protein. For a person whose body weight is 60 kg, this corresponds to 54 g. The daily protein requirement for a person who weighs 60 kg can be fulfilled through a vegan diet. According to Dr. Dörr, 54 g of protein is contained in 300 g of tofu, 350 g of cooked soybeans, 350 g of hazelnuts, 750 g of whole grain bread (15 slices at 50 g each), 750 g of cooked lentils, and 1 kg of white beans.

Vitamin B₆

Vitamin B₆ (pyridoxine) has, Dr. Dörr explains, multiple metabolic functions, especially in the metabolization of amino acids, and is important from a neurologic perspective. For girls, the vitamin is important for hormone metabolism. Data show that approximately 14% of girls aged 14-18 years ingest less than the recommended amount of vitamin B₆. For vegans, the percentage of those with insufficient intake is even higher, since vitamin B₆ has low bioavailability in plant-based foods. For girls, there is the additional factor of oral contraceptives. There are indications that those who use oral contraceptives containing estrogen have lower levels of pyridoxal-5’-phosphate (PLP), a marker for vitamin B₆. Since the PLP-dependent enzymes are essential for the synthesis of hormones such as serotonin, symptoms such as depressive moods, increased irritability, nervousness, and loss of libido can indicate a vitamin B₆ deficiency.

The daily B₆ requirement for girls is 1.4 mg and can be fulfilled, for example, by consuming 200 g of hazelnuts, 200 g of walnuts, 400 g of bananas (two to three bananas, depending on weight), 700 g of cooked green beans, 1 kg of cooked potatoes, and 1.4 kg of oats.

Vitamin B₁₂

Since vitamin B₁₂ is not present in plant-based food, following a vegan diet in the long term can result in deficiency unless dietary supplements are taken. When researching the choices of various dietary supplements, it should be taken into consideration that the utilization of vitamin B₁₂ from plant-based sources such as algae, seaweed, and fungi is not necessarily a given. Careful selection and regular monitoring of B₁₂ status is recommended.

Vitamin D

According to Dr. Dörr, evidence has increased in recent years that vitamin D is crucial not only for the bones but also for numerous metabolic processes. The fact is that foods are barely capable of covering the vitamin D requirement in amounts that can be expected to be consumed. Vegan foods are not able to contribute to the supply of vitamin D, since considerable amounts are present only in food of an animal origin. The decision to take supplements and in what amounts should be made on the basis of one’s condition.

Minerals

Calcium, iodine, iron, selenium, and zinc are not easily available in sufficient quantities from a purely plant-based diet. Plant-based foods usually contain lower quantities of these minerals than do foods of animal origin, and the minerals from plant-based sources have lower bioavailability. According to Dr. Dörr, current evidence suggests that a vegan diet can have negative effects on bone health. In an ongoing cross-sectional study, ultrasound measurements of the heel bone are being made, and biomarkers in the blood and urine are being measured. On average, people who follow a vegan diet have lower ultrasound readings than those of omnivores.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study from Great Britain, which involved almost 55,000 people, revealed that vegans had a 43% higher risk of fracture, compared to meat eaters.

An important nutrient, especially for cell development, is choline, which, Dr. Dörr explains, can be absorbed mainly through eating eggs, fish, meat, and dairy products. There is increasing evidence that a vegan diet is not able to supply sufficient quantities of choline, particularly if requirements increase, such as during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Evidence has grown that women who wish to conceive a child benefit not only from a sufficient intake of folate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects and for favorable fetal development but also from sufficient quantities of choline (the recommended daily amount for pregnant women is 480 mg).

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

WASHINGTON – Research on standardized microbiome-based therapies designed to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is moving “with a lot of momentum,” according to one expert, and modulation of the gut microbiome may even enhance responses to immunotherapy and/or abrogate toxicity, according to another.

Several products for prevention of CDI recurrence are poised for either phase 3 trials or upcoming Food and Drug Administration approval, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported at the 2022 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Jennifer A. Wargo, MD, MMSc, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, described her investigations of microbiome modulation’s role in cancer treatment. “I used to say yes [we can do this] somewhat enthusiastically without data, but now we have data to support this,” she said at the meeting. “The answer now is totally yes.”

New approaches for CDI

“Based on how the field is moving, we might be able to [offer our patients] earlier microbiome restoration” than is currently afforded with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), Dr. Khanna said. “Right now the [Food and Drug Administration] and our clinical guidelines say we should do FMT after three or more episodes [of CDI] – that’s heartbreaking for patients.”

Several of the microbiome-based therapies under investigation – including two that have completed phase 3 trials – have shown efficacy after a second episode of CDI, and one of these two has also had positive results after one episode of CDI in patients 65 at older, a group at particularly high risk of recurrence, said Dr. Khanna.

The value of standardized, mostly pill-form microbiome therapies has been heightened during the pandemic. “We’ve been doing conventional FMT for recurrent C. difficile for over a decade now, and it’s probably the most effective treatment we have,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and moderator of the session on microbiota-based therapies.

Prepandemic “it got really hard, with issues of identifying donors, and quality control and safety ... And then when COVID hit the stool banks shut down,” she said in an interview after the meeting. With stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 now in place, some stool is again available, “but it made me realize how fragile our current system is,” Dr. Kelly said. “The fact that companies are putting these products through the FDA pipeline and investigating them in rigorous, scientific randomized controlled trials is really good for the field.”

The products vary in composition; some are live multi-strain biotherapeutics derived from donor stool, for instance, while others are defined live bacterial consortia not from stool. Most are oral formulations, given one or multiple times, that do not require any bowel preparation.

One of the products most advanced in the pipeline, RBX2660 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) is stool derived and rectally administered. In phase 3 research, 70.5% of patients who received one active enema after having had two or more CDI recurrences and standard-of-care antibiotic treatment had no additional recurrence at 8 weeks compared to 58.1% in the placebo group, Dr. Khanna said.

The other product with positive phase 3 results, SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics), is a donor stool-derived oral formulation of purified Firmicutes spores that is administered after bowel prep. In results published earlier this year, the percentage of patients with recurrence of CDI up to 8 weeks after standard antibiotic treatment was 12% in the SER-109 group and 40% in the placebo group.

Patients in this trial were required to have had three episodes of CDI, and interestingly, Dr. Khanna said, the diagnosis of CDI was made only by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Earlier phase 2 research, which allowed either toxin EIA or polymerase chain reaction testing for the diagnosis of CDI (as other trials have done), produced negative results, leading investigators to surmise that some of the included patients had been colonized with C. difficile rather than being actively infected, Dr. Khanna said.

Researchers of these trials are documenting not only resolution of CDI but what they believe are positive shifts in the gut microbiota after microbiome-based therapy, he said. For instance, a phase 1 trial he led of the product RBX7455 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) – an oral capsule of lyophilized stool-based bacteria that can be kept for several days at room temperature – showed increases in Bacteroides and Clostridia.

And other trials’ analyses of microbiome engraftment have demonstrated that “you can restore [species] even when these bacteria aren’t [included in the therapy],” he noted. “As the milieu of the gut improves, species that were not detected start coming back up.”

Asked about rates of efficacy in the trials’ placebo arms, Dr. Khanna said that “we’ve become smarter with our antibiotic regimens ... the placebo response rate is the response to newer guideline-based therapies.”

In addition to CDI, microbiome-based therapies are being studied, mostly in phase 1 research, for indications such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism spectrum disorder, hepatitis B, and hepatic encephalopathy, Dr. Khanna noted.

Dr. Kelly, whose own research has focused on FMT for CDI, said she anticipates an expansion of research into other indications once products to prevent CDI recurrence are on the market. “There have been a couple of promising ulcerative colitis trials that haven’t gone anywhere clinically yet,” she said in the interview. “But will we now identify patients with [ulcerative colitis] who may be more sensitive to microbial manipulation, for whom we can use these microbial therapies along with a biologic?”

Some of her patients with IBD and CDI who are treated with FMT have not only had their CDI eradicated but have subsequently seen improvements in their IBD, she noted.

The role of traditional FMT and of stool banks will likely change in the future with new standardized oral microbiome-based therapies that can be approved and regulated by the FDA, she said. However, “we think the stool banks will still have some value,” she said, certainly for clinical research and probably for some treatment purposes as well. Regarding new therapies, “I just really hope they’re affordable,” she said.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sending them this resource from the AGA GI Patient Center.

Gut microbiome manipulation for cancer

Dr. Wargo’s research at MD Anderson has focused on metastatic breast cancer and immunotherapeutic checkpoint blockade. By sequencing microbiota samples and performing immune profiling in hundreds of patients, her team found that responders to PD-1 blockage have a greater diversity of gut bacteria and that “favorable signatures in the gut microbiome” are associated with enhanced immune responses in the tumor microenvironment.

Studies published last year in Science from investigators in Israel (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:602-9) and Pittsburgh (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:595-602), demonstrated that FMT promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. In one study, FMT provided clinical benefit in 6 of 15 patients whose cancer had progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy, “which is pretty remarkable,” Dr. Wargo said.

Both research groups, she noted, saw favorable changes in the gut microbiome and immune cell infiltrates both at the level of the colon and the tumor.

Current research on FMT and other microbiome modulation strategies for cancer is guided in part by knowledge that tumors have microbial signatures – these signatures are now being identified across all tumor types – and by findings of “cross talk” between the gut and tumor microbiomes, she explained.

“Researchers are working hard to identify optimal consortia to enhance immune responses in the cancer setting, with promising work in preclinical models,” she said, and clinical trials are in progress. The role of diet in modulating the microbiome and enhancing anti-tumor immunity, with a focus on high dietary fiber intake, is also being investigated, she said.

Get the latest information on the gut microbiome on the AGA website.

Dr. Wargo reported that she serves on the advisory boards and is a paid speaker of numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and is the coinventor of a patent submitted by the Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center on modulating the microbiome to enhance response to checkpoint blockade, and another related patent. Dr. Khanna reported that he is involved in research with Ferring/Rebiotix, Finch, Seres, Pfizer and Vedanta, and does consulting for Immuron and several other companies. Dr. Kelly said she serves as an unpaid adviser for OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank, and that her site has enrolled patients in two of the trials testing products for CDI.

WASHINGTON – Research on standardized microbiome-based therapies designed to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is moving “with a lot of momentum,” according to one expert, and modulation of the gut microbiome may even enhance responses to immunotherapy and/or abrogate toxicity, according to another.

Several products for prevention of CDI recurrence are poised for either phase 3 trials or upcoming Food and Drug Administration approval, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported at the 2022 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Jennifer A. Wargo, MD, MMSc, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, described her investigations of microbiome modulation’s role in cancer treatment. “I used to say yes [we can do this] somewhat enthusiastically without data, but now we have data to support this,” she said at the meeting. “The answer now is totally yes.”

New approaches for CDI

“Based on how the field is moving, we might be able to [offer our patients] earlier microbiome restoration” than is currently afforded with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), Dr. Khanna said. “Right now the [Food and Drug Administration] and our clinical guidelines say we should do FMT after three or more episodes [of CDI] – that’s heartbreaking for patients.”

Several of the microbiome-based therapies under investigation – including two that have completed phase 3 trials – have shown efficacy after a second episode of CDI, and one of these two has also had positive results after one episode of CDI in patients 65 at older, a group at particularly high risk of recurrence, said Dr. Khanna.

The value of standardized, mostly pill-form microbiome therapies has been heightened during the pandemic. “We’ve been doing conventional FMT for recurrent C. difficile for over a decade now, and it’s probably the most effective treatment we have,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and moderator of the session on microbiota-based therapies.

Prepandemic “it got really hard, with issues of identifying donors, and quality control and safety ... And then when COVID hit the stool banks shut down,” she said in an interview after the meeting. With stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 now in place, some stool is again available, “but it made me realize how fragile our current system is,” Dr. Kelly said. “The fact that companies are putting these products through the FDA pipeline and investigating them in rigorous, scientific randomized controlled trials is really good for the field.”

The products vary in composition; some are live multi-strain biotherapeutics derived from donor stool, for instance, while others are defined live bacterial consortia not from stool. Most are oral formulations, given one or multiple times, that do not require any bowel preparation.

One of the products most advanced in the pipeline, RBX2660 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) is stool derived and rectally administered. In phase 3 research, 70.5% of patients who received one active enema after having had two or more CDI recurrences and standard-of-care antibiotic treatment had no additional recurrence at 8 weeks compared to 58.1% in the placebo group, Dr. Khanna said.

The other product with positive phase 3 results, SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics), is a donor stool-derived oral formulation of purified Firmicutes spores that is administered after bowel prep. In results published earlier this year, the percentage of patients with recurrence of CDI up to 8 weeks after standard antibiotic treatment was 12% in the SER-109 group and 40% in the placebo group.

Patients in this trial were required to have had three episodes of CDI, and interestingly, Dr. Khanna said, the diagnosis of CDI was made only by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Earlier phase 2 research, which allowed either toxin EIA or polymerase chain reaction testing for the diagnosis of CDI (as other trials have done), produced negative results, leading investigators to surmise that some of the included patients had been colonized with C. difficile rather than being actively infected, Dr. Khanna said.

Researchers of these trials are documenting not only resolution of CDI but what they believe are positive shifts in the gut microbiota after microbiome-based therapy, he said. For instance, a phase 1 trial he led of the product RBX7455 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) – an oral capsule of lyophilized stool-based bacteria that can be kept for several days at room temperature – showed increases in Bacteroides and Clostridia.

And other trials’ analyses of microbiome engraftment have demonstrated that “you can restore [species] even when these bacteria aren’t [included in the therapy],” he noted. “As the milieu of the gut improves, species that were not detected start coming back up.”

Asked about rates of efficacy in the trials’ placebo arms, Dr. Khanna said that “we’ve become smarter with our antibiotic regimens ... the placebo response rate is the response to newer guideline-based therapies.”

In addition to CDI, microbiome-based therapies are being studied, mostly in phase 1 research, for indications such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism spectrum disorder, hepatitis B, and hepatic encephalopathy, Dr. Khanna noted.

Dr. Kelly, whose own research has focused on FMT for CDI, said she anticipates an expansion of research into other indications once products to prevent CDI recurrence are on the market. “There have been a couple of promising ulcerative colitis trials that haven’t gone anywhere clinically yet,” she said in the interview. “But will we now identify patients with [ulcerative colitis] who may be more sensitive to microbial manipulation, for whom we can use these microbial therapies along with a biologic?”

Some of her patients with IBD and CDI who are treated with FMT have not only had their CDI eradicated but have subsequently seen improvements in their IBD, she noted.

The role of traditional FMT and of stool banks will likely change in the future with new standardized oral microbiome-based therapies that can be approved and regulated by the FDA, she said. However, “we think the stool banks will still have some value,” she said, certainly for clinical research and probably for some treatment purposes as well. Regarding new therapies, “I just really hope they’re affordable,” she said.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sending them this resource from the AGA GI Patient Center.

Gut microbiome manipulation for cancer

Dr. Wargo’s research at MD Anderson has focused on metastatic breast cancer and immunotherapeutic checkpoint blockade. By sequencing microbiota samples and performing immune profiling in hundreds of patients, her team found that responders to PD-1 blockage have a greater diversity of gut bacteria and that “favorable signatures in the gut microbiome” are associated with enhanced immune responses in the tumor microenvironment.

Studies published last year in Science from investigators in Israel (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:602-9) and Pittsburgh (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:595-602), demonstrated that FMT promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. In one study, FMT provided clinical benefit in 6 of 15 patients whose cancer had progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy, “which is pretty remarkable,” Dr. Wargo said.

Both research groups, she noted, saw favorable changes in the gut microbiome and immune cell infiltrates both at the level of the colon and the tumor.

Current research on FMT and other microbiome modulation strategies for cancer is guided in part by knowledge that tumors have microbial signatures – these signatures are now being identified across all tumor types – and by findings of “cross talk” between the gut and tumor microbiomes, she explained.

“Researchers are working hard to identify optimal consortia to enhance immune responses in the cancer setting, with promising work in preclinical models,” she said, and clinical trials are in progress. The role of diet in modulating the microbiome and enhancing anti-tumor immunity, with a focus on high dietary fiber intake, is also being investigated, she said.

Get the latest information on the gut microbiome on the AGA website.

Dr. Wargo reported that she serves on the advisory boards and is a paid speaker of numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and is the coinventor of a patent submitted by the Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center on modulating the microbiome to enhance response to checkpoint blockade, and another related patent. Dr. Khanna reported that he is involved in research with Ferring/Rebiotix, Finch, Seres, Pfizer and Vedanta, and does consulting for Immuron and several other companies. Dr. Kelly said she serves as an unpaid adviser for OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank, and that her site has enrolled patients in two of the trials testing products for CDI.

WASHINGTON – Research on standardized microbiome-based therapies designed to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is moving “with a lot of momentum,” according to one expert, and modulation of the gut microbiome may even enhance responses to immunotherapy and/or abrogate toxicity, according to another.

Several products for prevention of CDI recurrence are poised for either phase 3 trials or upcoming Food and Drug Administration approval, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, MS, professor of medicine, gastroenterology, and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported at the 2022 Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Jennifer A. Wargo, MD, MMSc, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, described her investigations of microbiome modulation’s role in cancer treatment. “I used to say yes [we can do this] somewhat enthusiastically without data, but now we have data to support this,” she said at the meeting. “The answer now is totally yes.”

New approaches for CDI

“Based on how the field is moving, we might be able to [offer our patients] earlier microbiome restoration” than is currently afforded with fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), Dr. Khanna said. “Right now the [Food and Drug Administration] and our clinical guidelines say we should do FMT after three or more episodes [of CDI] – that’s heartbreaking for patients.”

Several of the microbiome-based therapies under investigation – including two that have completed phase 3 trials – have shown efficacy after a second episode of CDI, and one of these two has also had positive results after one episode of CDI in patients 65 at older, a group at particularly high risk of recurrence, said Dr. Khanna.

The value of standardized, mostly pill-form microbiome therapies has been heightened during the pandemic. “We’ve been doing conventional FMT for recurrent C. difficile for over a decade now, and it’s probably the most effective treatment we have,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and moderator of the session on microbiota-based therapies.

Prepandemic “it got really hard, with issues of identifying donors, and quality control and safety ... And then when COVID hit the stool banks shut down,” she said in an interview after the meeting. With stool testing for SARS-CoV-2 now in place, some stool is again available, “but it made me realize how fragile our current system is,” Dr. Kelly said. “The fact that companies are putting these products through the FDA pipeline and investigating them in rigorous, scientific randomized controlled trials is really good for the field.”

The products vary in composition; some are live multi-strain biotherapeutics derived from donor stool, for instance, while others are defined live bacterial consortia not from stool. Most are oral formulations, given one or multiple times, that do not require any bowel preparation.

One of the products most advanced in the pipeline, RBX2660 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) is stool derived and rectally administered. In phase 3 research, 70.5% of patients who received one active enema after having had two or more CDI recurrences and standard-of-care antibiotic treatment had no additional recurrence at 8 weeks compared to 58.1% in the placebo group, Dr. Khanna said.

The other product with positive phase 3 results, SER-109 (Seres Therapeutics), is a donor stool-derived oral formulation of purified Firmicutes spores that is administered after bowel prep. In results published earlier this year, the percentage of patients with recurrence of CDI up to 8 weeks after standard antibiotic treatment was 12% in the SER-109 group and 40% in the placebo group.

Patients in this trial were required to have had three episodes of CDI, and interestingly, Dr. Khanna said, the diagnosis of CDI was made only by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Earlier phase 2 research, which allowed either toxin EIA or polymerase chain reaction testing for the diagnosis of CDI (as other trials have done), produced negative results, leading investigators to surmise that some of the included patients had been colonized with C. difficile rather than being actively infected, Dr. Khanna said.

Researchers of these trials are documenting not only resolution of CDI but what they believe are positive shifts in the gut microbiota after microbiome-based therapy, he said. For instance, a phase 1 trial he led of the product RBX7455 (Rebiotix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) – an oral capsule of lyophilized stool-based bacteria that can be kept for several days at room temperature – showed increases in Bacteroides and Clostridia.

And other trials’ analyses of microbiome engraftment have demonstrated that “you can restore [species] even when these bacteria aren’t [included in the therapy],” he noted. “As the milieu of the gut improves, species that were not detected start coming back up.”

Asked about rates of efficacy in the trials’ placebo arms, Dr. Khanna said that “we’ve become smarter with our antibiotic regimens ... the placebo response rate is the response to newer guideline-based therapies.”

In addition to CDI, microbiome-based therapies are being studied, mostly in phase 1 research, for indications such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism spectrum disorder, hepatitis B, and hepatic encephalopathy, Dr. Khanna noted.

Dr. Kelly, whose own research has focused on FMT for CDI, said she anticipates an expansion of research into other indications once products to prevent CDI recurrence are on the market. “There have been a couple of promising ulcerative colitis trials that haven’t gone anywhere clinically yet,” she said in the interview. “But will we now identify patients with [ulcerative colitis] who may be more sensitive to microbial manipulation, for whom we can use these microbial therapies along with a biologic?”

Some of her patients with IBD and CDI who are treated with FMT have not only had their CDI eradicated but have subsequently seen improvements in their IBD, she noted.

The role of traditional FMT and of stool banks will likely change in the future with new standardized oral microbiome-based therapies that can be approved and regulated by the FDA, she said. However, “we think the stool banks will still have some value,” she said, certainly for clinical research and probably for some treatment purposes as well. Regarding new therapies, “I just really hope they’re affordable,” she said.

Help your patients understand their C. difficile diagnosis by sending them this resource from the AGA GI Patient Center.

Gut microbiome manipulation for cancer

Dr. Wargo’s research at MD Anderson has focused on metastatic breast cancer and immunotherapeutic checkpoint blockade. By sequencing microbiota samples and performing immune profiling in hundreds of patients, her team found that responders to PD-1 blockage have a greater diversity of gut bacteria and that “favorable signatures in the gut microbiome” are associated with enhanced immune responses in the tumor microenvironment.

Studies published last year in Science from investigators in Israel (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:602-9) and Pittsburgh (2021 Feb 5;371[6529]:595-602), demonstrated that FMT promotes response in immunotherapy-refractory melanoma patients. In one study, FMT provided clinical benefit in 6 of 15 patients whose cancer had progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy, “which is pretty remarkable,” Dr. Wargo said.

Both research groups, she noted, saw favorable changes in the gut microbiome and immune cell infiltrates both at the level of the colon and the tumor.

Current research on FMT and other microbiome modulation strategies for cancer is guided in part by knowledge that tumors have microbial signatures – these signatures are now being identified across all tumor types – and by findings of “cross talk” between the gut and tumor microbiomes, she explained.

“Researchers are working hard to identify optimal consortia to enhance immune responses in the cancer setting, with promising work in preclinical models,” she said, and clinical trials are in progress. The role of diet in modulating the microbiome and enhancing anti-tumor immunity, with a focus on high dietary fiber intake, is also being investigated, she said.

Get the latest information on the gut microbiome on the AGA website.

Dr. Wargo reported that she serves on the advisory boards and is a paid speaker of numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and is the coinventor of a patent submitted by the Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center on modulating the microbiome to enhance response to checkpoint blockade, and another related patent. Dr. Khanna reported that he is involved in research with Ferring/Rebiotix, Finch, Seres, Pfizer and Vedanta, and does consulting for Immuron and several other companies. Dr. Kelly said she serves as an unpaid adviser for OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank, and that her site has enrolled patients in two of the trials testing products for CDI.

Recent tests of 13 lots of the skeletal muscle relaxant Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg Extended Release (ER) found unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine impurity in the tablets, leading manufacturer Sandoz (Princeton, N.J.) to announce a voluntary recall of the lots on March 21.

The nitrosamine impurity detected (N-methyl-N-nitroso-2-[(2-methylphenyl)phenylmethoxy]ethanamine [NMOA or Nitroso-Orphenadrine]) may potentially be consumed at a level higher than the Food and Drug Administration’s Acceptable Daily Intake of 26.5 ng/day. Nitrosamines have carcinogenic potency when present above the allowable exposure limits, according to Sandoz, but the company said it “has not received any reports of adverse events related to the presence of a nitrosamine impurity in the lot.”

The Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg ER Tablets were shipped to customers from August 2019 to April 2021 and have lot numbers of JX6411, JX6413, KC0723, KC3303, KE4348, KE7169, KE4349, KL3199, KM0072, KS3939, LA7704, LA7703, and LA9243.

The lots contain 100- and 1,000-count bottles of Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets, which are used as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute painful musculoskeletal conditions.

The recall does not apply to any other strengths of Sandoz’s Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets or to other lot numbers of the product.

Sandoz advises that wholesalers and distributors should “immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and quarantine and return all recalled product in their inventory.” The company advises consumers to stop taking the recalled product and immediately consult with their physicians to obtain another prescription, notifying them of any problems that may be related to taking or using the tablets.

Sandoz says that retailers and consumers should contact Sedgwick directly by phone at 844-491-7869 or email at [email protected] to return the recalled product, and report adverse reactions to Sandoz by phone at (800) 525-8747 or by email at [email protected]. Adverse reactions and quality problems can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, or by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

Recent tests of 13 lots of the skeletal muscle relaxant Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg Extended Release (ER) found unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine impurity in the tablets, leading manufacturer Sandoz (Princeton, N.J.) to announce a voluntary recall of the lots on March 21.

The nitrosamine impurity detected (N-methyl-N-nitroso-2-[(2-methylphenyl)phenylmethoxy]ethanamine [NMOA or Nitroso-Orphenadrine]) may potentially be consumed at a level higher than the Food and Drug Administration’s Acceptable Daily Intake of 26.5 ng/day. Nitrosamines have carcinogenic potency when present above the allowable exposure limits, according to Sandoz, but the company said it “has not received any reports of adverse events related to the presence of a nitrosamine impurity in the lot.”

The Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg ER Tablets were shipped to customers from August 2019 to April 2021 and have lot numbers of JX6411, JX6413, KC0723, KC3303, KE4348, KE7169, KE4349, KL3199, KM0072, KS3939, LA7704, LA7703, and LA9243.

The lots contain 100- and 1,000-count bottles of Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets, which are used as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute painful musculoskeletal conditions.

The recall does not apply to any other strengths of Sandoz’s Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets or to other lot numbers of the product.

Sandoz advises that wholesalers and distributors should “immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and quarantine and return all recalled product in their inventory.” The company advises consumers to stop taking the recalled product and immediately consult with their physicians to obtain another prescription, notifying them of any problems that may be related to taking or using the tablets.

Sandoz says that retailers and consumers should contact Sedgwick directly by phone at 844-491-7869 or email at [email protected] to return the recalled product, and report adverse reactions to Sandoz by phone at (800) 525-8747 or by email at [email protected]. Adverse reactions and quality problems can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, or by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

Recent tests of 13 lots of the skeletal muscle relaxant Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg Extended Release (ER) found unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine impurity in the tablets, leading manufacturer Sandoz (Princeton, N.J.) to announce a voluntary recall of the lots on March 21.

The nitrosamine impurity detected (N-methyl-N-nitroso-2-[(2-methylphenyl)phenylmethoxy]ethanamine [NMOA or Nitroso-Orphenadrine]) may potentially be consumed at a level higher than the Food and Drug Administration’s Acceptable Daily Intake of 26.5 ng/day. Nitrosamines have carcinogenic potency when present above the allowable exposure limits, according to Sandoz, but the company said it “has not received any reports of adverse events related to the presence of a nitrosamine impurity in the lot.”

The Orphenadrine Citrate 100 mg ER Tablets were shipped to customers from August 2019 to April 2021 and have lot numbers of JX6411, JX6413, KC0723, KC3303, KE4348, KE7169, KE4349, KL3199, KM0072, KS3939, LA7704, LA7703, and LA9243.

The lots contain 100- and 1,000-count bottles of Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets, which are used as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute painful musculoskeletal conditions.

The recall does not apply to any other strengths of Sandoz’s Orphenadrine Citrate ER Tablets or to other lot numbers of the product.

Sandoz advises that wholesalers and distributors should “immediately stop distribution of the recalled product and quarantine and return all recalled product in their inventory.” The company advises consumers to stop taking the recalled product and immediately consult with their physicians to obtain another prescription, notifying them of any problems that may be related to taking or using the tablets.

Sandoz says that retailers and consumers should contact Sedgwick directly by phone at 844-491-7869 or email at [email protected] to return the recalled product, and report adverse reactions to Sandoz by phone at (800) 525-8747 or by email at [email protected]. Adverse reactions and quality problems can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail, or by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There does not appear to be superiority of any type of biologic medication for patients with rheumatoid arthritis across different body mass index (BMI) groupings, with obesity and underweight both reducing the effects of the treatments after 6 months of use, according to findings from registry data on nearly 6,000 individuals.

Although interest in the precision use of biologics for RA is on the rise, few patient characteristics have been identified to inform therapeutic decisions, Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies on the effect of obesity on RA treatments have been inconclusive, and a comparison of RA treatments across BMI categories would provide more definitive guidance, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers used the CorEvitas U.S. observational registry (formerly known as Corrona) to identify adults who initiated second- or third-line treatment for RA with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 2,891) or non-TNFi biologics (n = 3,010) between 2001 and April 30, 2021.

The study population included adults diagnosed with RA; those with low disease activity or without a 6-month follow-up visit were excluded. BMI was categorized as underweight (less than 18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-25 kg/m²), overweight (25-30 kg/m²), obese (30-35 kg/m²), and severely obese (35 kg/m² or higher). The three measures of response were the achievement of low disease activity (LDA), a change at least as large as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and the absolute change on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) from baseline.

A total of 2,712 patients were obese or severely obese at the time of treatment initiation.

Overall, patients with severe obesity had significantly lower odds of achieving either LDA or a change at least as large as the MCID, as well as less improvement in CDAI score, compared with other BMI categories. However, in adjusted models, the differences in these outcomes for patients with severe obesity were no longer statistically significant, whereas underweight was associated with lower odds of achieving LDA (odds ratio, 0.32; P = .005) or a change at least as large as the MCID (OR, 0.40; P = .005). The adjusted model also showed lesser improvement on CDAI in underweight patients, compared with patients of normal weight (P = .006).

Stratification by TNFi and non-TNFi therapies showed no differences in clinical response rates across BMI categories.

The study represents the first evidence of a similar reduction in therapeutic response with both TNFi and non-TNFi in severely obese patients, with estimates for non-TNFi biologics that fit within the 95% confidence interval for TNFi biologics, the researchers wrote. “Our current study suggests that a lack of response among obese patients is not specific to TNFi therapies, suggesting that this phenomenon is not biologically specific to the TNF pathway.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus on patients who were not naive to biologic treatments and by the relatively small number of underweight patients (n = 57), the researchers noted. Other limitations include unaddressed mediators of the relationship between obesity and disease activity and lack of data on off-label dosing strategies.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, control for a range of confounding factors, and the direct comparison of RA therapies.

The researchers concluded that BMI should not influence the choice of TNF versus non-TNF therapy in terms of clinical efficacy.

The study was supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. Dr. Baker disclosed receiving support from a Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation Research and Development Merit Award, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CorEvitas, and Burns-White. Two coauthors reported financial ties to CorEvitas.

There does not appear to be superiority of any type of biologic medication for patients with rheumatoid arthritis across different body mass index (BMI) groupings, with obesity and underweight both reducing the effects of the treatments after 6 months of use, according to findings from registry data on nearly 6,000 individuals.

Although interest in the precision use of biologics for RA is on the rise, few patient characteristics have been identified to inform therapeutic decisions, Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies on the effect of obesity on RA treatments have been inconclusive, and a comparison of RA treatments across BMI categories would provide more definitive guidance, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers used the CorEvitas U.S. observational registry (formerly known as Corrona) to identify adults who initiated second- or third-line treatment for RA with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 2,891) or non-TNFi biologics (n = 3,010) between 2001 and April 30, 2021.

The study population included adults diagnosed with RA; those with low disease activity or without a 6-month follow-up visit were excluded. BMI was categorized as underweight (less than 18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-25 kg/m²), overweight (25-30 kg/m²), obese (30-35 kg/m²), and severely obese (35 kg/m² or higher). The three measures of response were the achievement of low disease activity (LDA), a change at least as large as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and the absolute change on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) from baseline.

A total of 2,712 patients were obese or severely obese at the time of treatment initiation.

Overall, patients with severe obesity had significantly lower odds of achieving either LDA or a change at least as large as the MCID, as well as less improvement in CDAI score, compared with other BMI categories. However, in adjusted models, the differences in these outcomes for patients with severe obesity were no longer statistically significant, whereas underweight was associated with lower odds of achieving LDA (odds ratio, 0.32; P = .005) or a change at least as large as the MCID (OR, 0.40; P = .005). The adjusted model also showed lesser improvement on CDAI in underweight patients, compared with patients of normal weight (P = .006).

Stratification by TNFi and non-TNFi therapies showed no differences in clinical response rates across BMI categories.

The study represents the first evidence of a similar reduction in therapeutic response with both TNFi and non-TNFi in severely obese patients, with estimates for non-TNFi biologics that fit within the 95% confidence interval for TNFi biologics, the researchers wrote. “Our current study suggests that a lack of response among obese patients is not specific to TNFi therapies, suggesting that this phenomenon is not biologically specific to the TNF pathway.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus on patients who were not naive to biologic treatments and by the relatively small number of underweight patients (n = 57), the researchers noted. Other limitations include unaddressed mediators of the relationship between obesity and disease activity and lack of data on off-label dosing strategies.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, control for a range of confounding factors, and the direct comparison of RA therapies.

The researchers concluded that BMI should not influence the choice of TNF versus non-TNF therapy in terms of clinical efficacy.

The study was supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. Dr. Baker disclosed receiving support from a Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation Research and Development Merit Award, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CorEvitas, and Burns-White. Two coauthors reported financial ties to CorEvitas.

There does not appear to be superiority of any type of biologic medication for patients with rheumatoid arthritis across different body mass index (BMI) groupings, with obesity and underweight both reducing the effects of the treatments after 6 months of use, according to findings from registry data on nearly 6,000 individuals.

Although interest in the precision use of biologics for RA is on the rise, few patient characteristics have been identified to inform therapeutic decisions, Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

Previous studies on the effect of obesity on RA treatments have been inconclusive, and a comparison of RA treatments across BMI categories would provide more definitive guidance, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis Care & Research, the researchers used the CorEvitas U.S. observational registry (formerly known as Corrona) to identify adults who initiated second- or third-line treatment for RA with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 2,891) or non-TNFi biologics (n = 3,010) between 2001 and April 30, 2021.

The study population included adults diagnosed with RA; those with low disease activity or without a 6-month follow-up visit were excluded. BMI was categorized as underweight (less than 18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5-25 kg/m²), overweight (25-30 kg/m²), obese (30-35 kg/m²), and severely obese (35 kg/m² or higher). The three measures of response were the achievement of low disease activity (LDA), a change at least as large as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and the absolute change on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) from baseline.

A total of 2,712 patients were obese or severely obese at the time of treatment initiation.

Overall, patients with severe obesity had significantly lower odds of achieving either LDA or a change at least as large as the MCID, as well as less improvement in CDAI score, compared with other BMI categories. However, in adjusted models, the differences in these outcomes for patients with severe obesity were no longer statistically significant, whereas underweight was associated with lower odds of achieving LDA (odds ratio, 0.32; P = .005) or a change at least as large as the MCID (OR, 0.40; P = .005). The adjusted model also showed lesser improvement on CDAI in underweight patients, compared with patients of normal weight (P = .006).

Stratification by TNFi and non-TNFi therapies showed no differences in clinical response rates across BMI categories.

The study represents the first evidence of a similar reduction in therapeutic response with both TNFi and non-TNFi in severely obese patients, with estimates for non-TNFi biologics that fit within the 95% confidence interval for TNFi biologics, the researchers wrote. “Our current study suggests that a lack of response among obese patients is not specific to TNFi therapies, suggesting that this phenomenon is not biologically specific to the TNF pathway.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus on patients who were not naive to biologic treatments and by the relatively small number of underweight patients (n = 57), the researchers noted. Other limitations include unaddressed mediators of the relationship between obesity and disease activity and lack of data on off-label dosing strategies.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, control for a range of confounding factors, and the direct comparison of RA therapies.

The researchers concluded that BMI should not influence the choice of TNF versus non-TNF therapy in terms of clinical efficacy.

The study was supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. Dr. Baker disclosed receiving support from a Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development Merit Award and a Rehabilitation Research and Development Merit Award, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CorEvitas, and Burns-White. Two coauthors reported financial ties to CorEvitas.

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

Morton J, MD, a 68-year-old cardiologist based in the Midwest, saw things become dramatically worse when his nine-physician practice was taken over by a large health system.

“Everything changed. My partners and I lost a lot of autonomy. We had a say – but not the final say-so in who we hired as medical assistants or receptionists. We had to change how long we spent with patients and justify procedures or tests – not just to the insurance companies, which is an old story, but to our new employer,” said Dr. J, who asked to remain anonymous.

Worst of all, “I had to report to a kid – a doctor in his 30s, someone young enough to be my son, someone with a fraction of the clinical training and experience I had but who now got to tell me what to do and how to run my practice.”

The “final straw” for Dr. J came when the practice had to change to a new electronic health record (EHR) system. “Learning this new system was like pulling teeth,” he said. His youthful supervisor was “obviously impatient and irritated – his whole attitude and demeanor reflected a sense that he was saddled with a dinosaur.”

After much anguishing and soul-searching, Dr. J decided to retire. “I was already close to retirement age, and I thought it would be nice to spend more time with my grandchildren. Feeling so disrespected was simply the catalyst that brought the decision to a head a couple of years sooner than I had planned.”
 

Getting through a delicate discussion

This unfortunate situation could have been avoided had the younger supervisor shown more sensitivity, says otolaryngologist Mark Wallace, DO.

Dr. Wallace is speaking from personal experience. Early in his career, he was a younger physician who was forced to discuss a practice management issue with an older physician.

Dr. Wallace was a member of a committee that was responsible for “maximizing the efficiency of good care, while still being aware of cost issues.” When the committee “wanted one of the physicians in the group to change their behavior to improve cost savings, it was my job to discuss that with them.”

Dr. Wallace, who today is a locum tenens physician and a medical practice consultant to Physicians Thrive – an advisory group that helps physicians with financial and practice management problems – recalls feeling uncomfortable about broaching the subject to his supervisee. In this case, the older physician was prescribing name brand medications, and the committee that appointed Dr. Wallace wanted him to encourage the physician to prescribe a generic medication first and reserve brand prescriptions only for cases in which the generic was ineffective.

He acknowledges that he thought the generic was equivalent to the branded product in safety and efficacy.

“I always felt this to be a delicate discussion, whatever the age of the physician, because I didn’t like the idea of telling a doctor that they have to change how they practice so as to save money. I would never want anyone to feel they’re providing a lower level of care.”

The fact that this was an older physician – in his 60s – compounded his hesitancy. “Older physicians have a lot more experience than what I had in my 30s,” Dr. Wallace said. “I could talk to them about studies and outcomes and things like that, but a large part of medicine is the experience you gain over time.

“I presented it simply as a cost issue raised by the committee and asked him to consider experimenting with changing his prescribing behavior, while emphasizing that ultimately, it was his decision,” says Dr. Wallace.

The supervisee understood the concern and agreed to the experiment. He ended up prescribing the generic more frequently, although perhaps not as frequently as the committee would have liked.

Respectful, authentic, honest communication is important in any leadership situation but especially in those in which younger physicians are supervising physicians who are old enough to be their parents, says Ted Epperly, MD, a family physician in Boise, Idaho, and president and CEO of Family Medicine Residency of Idaho.

Dr. Wallace said that older physicians, on coming out of training, felt more respected, were better paid, and didn’t have to continually adjust to new regulations and new complicated insurance requirements. Today’s young physicians coming out of training may not find the practice of medicine as enjoyable as their older counterparts did, but they are accustomed to increasingly complex rules and regulations, so it’s less of an adjustment. But many may not feel they want to work 80 hours per week, as their older counterparts did.
 

Challenges of technology

Technology is one of the most central areas where intergenerational differences play out, says Tracy Clarke, chief human resources officer at Kitsap Mental Health Services, a large nonprofit organization in Bremerton, Wash., that employs roughly 500 individuals. “The younger physicians in our practice are really prepared, already engaged in technology, and used to using technology for documentation, and it is already integrated into the way they do business in general and practice,” she said.

Dr. Epperly noted that Gen X-ers are typically comfortable with digital technology, although not quite as much as the following generation, the millennials, who have grown up with smartphones and computers quite literally at their fingertips from earliest childhood.

Dr. Epperly, now 67, described the experience of having his organization convert to a new EHR system. “Although the younger physicians were not my supervisors, the dynamic that occurred when we were switching to the new system is typical of what might happen in a more formal reporting structure of older ‘supervisee’ and younger supervisor,” he said. In fact, his experience was similar to that of Dr. J.

“Some of the millennials were so quick to learn the new system that they forgot to check in with the older ones about how they were doing, or they were frustrated with our slow pace of learning the new technology,” said Dr. Epperly. “In fact, I was struggling to master it, and so were many others of my generation, and I felt very dumb, slow, and vulnerable, even though I usually regard myself as a pretty bright guy.”

Dr. Epperly encourages younger physicians not to think, “He’s asked me five times how to do this – what’s his problem?” This impatience can be intuited by the older physician, who may take it personally and feel devalued and disrespected.

Joy Engblade, an internal medicine physician and CMO of Northern Inyo Hospital, Bishop, Calif., said that when her institution was transitioning to a new EHR system this past May, she was worried that the older physicians would have the most difficulty.

Ironically, that turned out not to be the case. In fact, the younger physicians struggled more because the older physicians recognized their limitations and “were willing to do whatever we asked them to do. They watched the tutorials about how to use the new EHR. They went to every class that was offered and did all the practice sessions.” By contrast, many of the younger ones thought, “I know how to work an EHR, I’ve been doing it for years, so how hard could it be?” By the time they needed to actually use it, the instructional resources and tutorials were no longer available.

Dr. Epperly’s experience is different. He noted that some older physicians may be embarrassed to acknowledge that they are technologically challenged and may say, “I got it, I understand,” when they are still struggling to master the new technology.

Ms. Clarke notes that the leadership in her organization is younger than many of the physicians who report to them. “For the leadership, the biggest challenge is that many older physicians are set in their ways, and they haven’t really seen a reason to change their practice or ways of doing things.” For example, some still prefer paper charting or making voice recordings of patient visits for other people to transcribe.

Ms. Clarke has some advice for younger leaders: “Really explore what the pain points are of these older physicians. Beyond their saying, ‘because I’ve always done it this way,’ what really is the advantage of, for example, paper charting when using the EHR is more efficient?”

Daniel DeBehnke, MD, is an emergency medicine physician and vice president and chief physician executive for Premier Inc., where he helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and financial performance. Before joining Premier, he was both a practicing physician and CEO of a health system consisting of more than 1,500 physicians.

“Having been on both sides of the spectrum as manager/leader within a physician group, some of whom are senior to me and some of whom are junior, I can tell you that I have never had any issues related to the age gap.” In fact, it is less about age per se and more about “the expertise that you, as a manager, bring to the table in understanding the nuances of the medical practice and for the individual being ‘managed.’ It is about trusting the expertise of the manager.”
 

Before and after hourly caps

Dr. Engblade regards “generational” issues to be less about age and birth year and more about the cap on hours worked during residency.

Dr. Engblade, who is 45 years old, said she did her internship year with no hourly restrictions. Such restrictions only went into effect during her second year of residency. “This created a paradigm shift in how much people wanted to work and created a consciousness of work-life balance that hadn’t been part of the conversation before,” she said.

When she interviews an older physician, a typical response is, “Of course I’ll be available any time,” whereas younger physicians, who went through residency after hourly restrictions had been established, are more likely to ask how many hours they will be on and how many they’ll be off.

Matt Lambert, MD, an independent emergency medicine physician and CMO of Curation Health, Washington, agreed, noting that differences in the cap on hours during training “can create a bit of an undertow, a tension between younger managers who are better adjusted in terms of work-life balance and older physicians being managed, who have a different work ethic and also might regard their managers as being less trained because they put in fewer hours during training.”

It is also important to be cognizant of differences in style and priorities that each generation brings to the table. Jaciel Keltgen, PhD, assistant professor of business administration, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, S.D., has heard older physicians say, “We did this the hard way, we sacrificed for our organization, and we expect the same values of younger physicians.” The younger ones tend to say, “We need to use all the tools at our disposal, and medicine doesn’t have to be practiced the way it’s always been.”

Dr. Keltgen, whose PhD is in political science and who has studied public administration, said that younger physicians may also question the mores and protocols that older physicians take for granted. For example, when her physician son was beginning his career, he was told by his senior supervisors that although he was “performing beautifully as a physician, he needed to shave more frequently, wear his white coat more often, and introduce himself as ‘Doctor’ rather than by his first name. Although he did wear his white coat more often, he didn’t change how he introduced himself to patients.”

Flexibility and mutual understanding of each generation’s needs, the type, structure, and amount of training they underwent, and the prevailing values will smooth supervisory interactions and optimize outcomes, experts agree.
 

Every generation’s No. 1 concern

For her dissertation, Dr. Keltgen used a large dataset of physicians and sought to draw a predictive model by generation and gender as to what physicians were seeking in order to be satisfied in their careers. One “overwhelming finding” of her research into generational differences in physicians is that “every single generation and gender is there to promote the health of their patients, and providing excellent care is their No. 1 concern. That is the common focus and the foundation that everyone can build on.”

Dr. J agreed. “Had I felt like a valued collaborator, I might have made a different decision.” He has begun to consider reentering clinical practice, perhaps as locum tenens or on a part-time basis. “I don’t want to feel that I’ve been driven out of a field that I love. I will see if I can find some type of context where my experience will be valued and learn to bring myself up to speed with technology if necessary. I believe I still have much to offer patients, and I would like to find a context to do so.”

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Despite his insistence that he was not scratching his abdomen, the lack of primary lesions and the appearance of horizontally oriented excoriations over the abdomen in multiple stages of healing were consistent with neurotic excoriations.

Neurotic excoriation is frequently associated with psychiatric disease, especially obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression.¹ Stimulant-use, either by prescription or illicit, can lead to increased self-grooming behaviors, motor tics, and scratching. High doses of stimulants can trigger paranoia and tactile hallucinations.

In this case, the preponderance of skin lesions occurring on the left side of the patient’s abdomen fit with a right-handed individual, which the patient was. On his anterior lower legs, there were linear excoriations oriented vertically. Close observation of the patient during history taking revealed unconscious skin-picking behavior, and dead skin and debris could be noted under his fingernails. Two punch biopsies of active lesions were consistent with excoriations and excluded inflammatory causes of itching. (Careful evaluation for scabies, eczema, urticaria, and contact dermatitis was also performed.)

In this case, the patient’s psychiatrist reduced his dosage of lisdexamfetamine to a starting dose of 30 mg daily, which led to decreased skin scratching behavior. While the patient continued to have limited insight into the nature of his skin changes, progress was measured by a reduction in the number of active lesions.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Despite his insistence that he was not scratching his abdomen, the lack of primary lesions and the appearance of horizontally oriented excoriations over the abdomen in multiple stages of healing were consistent with neurotic excoriations.

Neurotic excoriation is frequently associated with psychiatric disease, especially obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression.¹ Stimulant-use, either by prescription or illicit, can lead to increased self-grooming behaviors, motor tics, and scratching. High doses of stimulants can trigger paranoia and tactile hallucinations.

In this case, the preponderance of skin lesions occurring on the left side of the patient’s abdomen fit with a right-handed individual, which the patient was. On his anterior lower legs, there were linear excoriations oriented vertically. Close observation of the patient during history taking revealed unconscious skin-picking behavior, and dead skin and debris could be noted under his fingernails. Two punch biopsies of active lesions were consistent with excoriations and excluded inflammatory causes of itching. (Careful evaluation for scabies, eczema, urticaria, and contact dermatitis was also performed.)

In this case, the patient’s psychiatrist reduced his dosage of lisdexamfetamine to a starting dose of 30 mg daily, which led to decreased skin scratching behavior. While the patient continued to have limited insight into the nature of his skin changes, progress was measured by a reduction in the number of active lesions.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Despite his insistence that he was not scratching his abdomen, the lack of primary lesions and the appearance of horizontally oriented excoriations over the abdomen in multiple stages of healing were consistent with neurotic excoriations.

Neurotic excoriation is frequently associated with psychiatric disease, especially obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression.¹ Stimulant-use, either by prescription or illicit, can lead to increased self-grooming behaviors, motor tics, and scratching. High doses of stimulants can trigger paranoia and tactile hallucinations.

In this case, the preponderance of skin lesions occurring on the left side of the patient’s abdomen fit with a right-handed individual, which the patient was. On his anterior lower legs, there were linear excoriations oriented vertically. Close observation of the patient during history taking revealed unconscious skin-picking behavior, and dead skin and debris could be noted under his fingernails. Two punch biopsies of active lesions were consistent with excoriations and excluded inflammatory causes of itching. (Careful evaluation for scabies, eczema, urticaria, and contact dermatitis was also performed.)

In this case, the patient’s psychiatrist reduced his dosage of lisdexamfetamine to a starting dose of 30 mg daily, which led to decreased skin scratching behavior. While the patient continued to have limited insight into the nature of his skin changes, progress was measured by a reduction in the number of active lesions.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).