Evaluation of patients with extraesophageal symptoms of reflux is a challenging area in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients often present with symptoms that are not classic for reflux such as chronic cough, worsening asthma, sore throat, or globus. 

In the upper GI section of the postgraduate course program, Rena Yadlapati, MD, and C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, MRCP, educated us about optimal strategies for diagnosis and treatment of this difficult group of patients.  Dr. Gyawali reminded us of risk stratification of patients into those with high or low likelihood of reflux as contributing etiology for patients with suspected extraesophageal reflux. Dr. Yadlapti reviewed the utility of the HASBEER score in stratifying patients into these two risk categories.  Patients with known reflux at baseline and/or if they have classic symptoms of reflux in addition to extraesophageal symptoms may be at higher likelihood of having abnormal esophageal acid exposure than those without classic heartburn and/or regurgitation.  The low-risk group may then benefit from diagnostic testing off PPI therapy (either impedance/pH monitoring or wireless pH testing), whereas those in the high-risk group for reflux may undergo impedance pH testing on PPI therapy to ensure control of reflux while on therapy.  

Dr. Yadlapati also updated the audience about lack of robust data to suggest clinical utility for oropharyngeal pH test or salivary pepsin assay testing.  It was generally agreed on that the majority of patients who do not respond to aggressive acid suppressive therapy likely do not have reflux related extraesophageal symptoms and alternative etiologies may be at play. 

Finally, both investigators outlined the importance of neuromodulation in those whose symptoms may be due to “irritable larynx.”  They emphasized the role of tricyclics as well as gabapentin as off label uses for patients who have normal reflux testing and continue to have chronic cough or globus sensation.

Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, MSc, is an associate chief and a clinical director of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and director of the Clinical Research and Center for Esophageal Disorders at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. He reports consulting for Phathom, Ironwood, Diversatek, Isothrive, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Evaluation of patients with extraesophageal symptoms of reflux is a challenging area in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients often present with symptoms that are not classic for reflux such as chronic cough, worsening asthma, sore throat, or globus. 

In the upper GI section of the postgraduate course program, Rena Yadlapati, MD, and C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, MRCP, educated us about optimal strategies for diagnosis and treatment of this difficult group of patients.  Dr. Gyawali reminded us of risk stratification of patients into those with high or low likelihood of reflux as contributing etiology for patients with suspected extraesophageal reflux. Dr. Yadlapti reviewed the utility of the HASBEER score in stratifying patients into these two risk categories.  Patients with known reflux at baseline and/or if they have classic symptoms of reflux in addition to extraesophageal symptoms may be at higher likelihood of having abnormal esophageal acid exposure than those without classic heartburn and/or regurgitation.  The low-risk group may then benefit from diagnostic testing off PPI therapy (either impedance/pH monitoring or wireless pH testing), whereas those in the high-risk group for reflux may undergo impedance pH testing on PPI therapy to ensure control of reflux while on therapy.  

Dr. Yadlapati also updated the audience about lack of robust data to suggest clinical utility for oropharyngeal pH test or salivary pepsin assay testing.  It was generally agreed on that the majority of patients who do not respond to aggressive acid suppressive therapy likely do not have reflux related extraesophageal symptoms and alternative etiologies may be at play. 

Finally, both investigators outlined the importance of neuromodulation in those whose symptoms may be due to “irritable larynx.”  They emphasized the role of tricyclics as well as gabapentin as off label uses for patients who have normal reflux testing and continue to have chronic cough or globus sensation.

Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, MSc, is an associate chief and a clinical director of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and director of the Clinical Research and Center for Esophageal Disorders at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. He reports consulting for Phathom, Ironwood, Diversatek, Isothrive, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Evaluation of patients with extraesophageal symptoms of reflux is a challenging area in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients often present with symptoms that are not classic for reflux such as chronic cough, worsening asthma, sore throat, or globus. 

In the upper GI section of the postgraduate course program, Rena Yadlapati, MD, and C. Prakash Gyawali, MD, MRCP, educated us about optimal strategies for diagnosis and treatment of this difficult group of patients.  Dr. Gyawali reminded us of risk stratification of patients into those with high or low likelihood of reflux as contributing etiology for patients with suspected extraesophageal reflux. Dr. Yadlapti reviewed the utility of the HASBEER score in stratifying patients into these two risk categories.  Patients with known reflux at baseline and/or if they have classic symptoms of reflux in addition to extraesophageal symptoms may be at higher likelihood of having abnormal esophageal acid exposure than those without classic heartburn and/or regurgitation.  The low-risk group may then benefit from diagnostic testing off PPI therapy (either impedance/pH monitoring or wireless pH testing), whereas those in the high-risk group for reflux may undergo impedance pH testing on PPI therapy to ensure control of reflux while on therapy.  

Dr. Yadlapati also updated the audience about lack of robust data to suggest clinical utility for oropharyngeal pH test or salivary pepsin assay testing.  It was generally agreed on that the majority of patients who do not respond to aggressive acid suppressive therapy likely do not have reflux related extraesophageal symptoms and alternative etiologies may be at play. 

Finally, both investigators outlined the importance of neuromodulation in those whose symptoms may be due to “irritable larynx.”  They emphasized the role of tricyclics as well as gabapentin as off label uses for patients who have normal reflux testing and continue to have chronic cough or globus sensation.

Michael F. Vaezi, MD, PhD, MSc, is an associate chief and a clinical director of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and director of the Clinical Research and Center for Esophageal Disorders at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. He reports consulting for Phathom, Ironwood, Diversatek, Isothrive, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

One week after reporting promising results from the trial of their COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 5-11, Pfizer and BioNTech announced they’d submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration. But that hasn’t stopped some parents from discreetly getting their children under age 12 vaccinated.

“The FDA, you never want to get ahead of their judgment,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC on Sept. 28. “But I would imagine in the next few weeks, they will examine that data and hopefully they’ll give the okay so that we can start vaccinating children, hopefully before the end of October.”
 

Lying to vaccinate now

More than half of all parents with children under 12 say they plan to get their kids vaccinated, according to a Gallup poll. Among those who say they’re “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about their children catching COVID, that number goes up to 90% and 72%, respectively.

And although the FDA and the American Academy of Pediatrics have warned against it, some parents whose children can pass for 12 have lied to get them vaccinated already.

Dawn G. is a mom of two in southwest Missouri, where less than 45% of the population has been fully vaccinated. Her son turns 12 in early October, but in-person school started in mid-August.

“It was scary, thinking of him going to school for even 2 months,” she said. “Some parents thought their kid had a low chance of getting COVID, and their kid died. Nobody expects it to be them.”

In July, she and her husband took their son to a walk-in clinic and lied about his age.

“So many things can happen, from bullying to school shootings, and now this added pandemic risk,” she said. “I’ll do anything I can to protect my child, and a birthdate seems so arbitrary. He’ll be 12 in a matter of weeks. It seems ridiculous that that date would stop me from protecting him.”

In northern California, Carrie S. had a similar thought. When the vaccine was authorized for children ages 12-15 in May, the older of her two children got the shot right away. But her youngest doesn’t turn 12 until November.

“We were tempted to get the younger one vaccinated in May, but it didn’t seem like a rush. We were willing to wait to get the dosage right,” she ssaid. “But as Delta came through, there were no options for online school, the CDC was dropping mask expectations –it seemed like the world was ready to forget the pandemic was happening. It seemed like the least-bad option to get her vaccinated so she could go back to school, and we could find some balance of risk in our lives.”
 

Adult vs. pediatric doses

For now, experts advise against getting younger children vaccinated, even those who are the size of an adult, because of the way the human immune system develops.

“It’s not really about size,” said Anne Liu, MD, an immunologist and pediatrics professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The immune system behaves differently at different ages. Younger kids tend to have a more exuberant innate immune system, which is the part of the immune system that senses danger, even before it has developed a memory response.”

The adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine contains 30 mcg of mRNA, while the pediatric dose is just 10 mcg. That smaller dose produces an immune response similar to what’s seen in adults who receive 30 mcg, according to Pfizer.

“We were one of the sites that was involved in the phase 1 trial, a lot of times that’s called a dose-finding trial,” said Michael Smith, MD, a coinvestigator for the COVID vaccine trials done at Duke University. “And basically, if younger kids got a higher dose, they had more of a reaction, so it hurt more. They had fever, they had more redness and swelling at the site of the injection, and they just felt lousy, more than at the lower doses.”

At this point, with Pfizer’s data showing that younger children need a smaller dose, it doesn’t make sense to lie about your child’s age, said Dr. Smith.

“If my two options were having my child get the infection versus getting the vaccine, I’d get the vaccine. But we’re a few weeks away from getting the lower dose approved in kids,” he said. “It’s certainly safer. I don’t expect major, lifelong side effects from the higher dose, but it’s going to hurt, your kid’s going to have a fever, they’re going to feel lousy for a couple days, and they just don’t need that much antigen.”

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

One week after reporting promising results from the trial of their COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 5-11, Pfizer and BioNTech announced they’d submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration. But that hasn’t stopped some parents from discreetly getting their children under age 12 vaccinated.

“The FDA, you never want to get ahead of their judgment,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC on Sept. 28. “But I would imagine in the next few weeks, they will examine that data and hopefully they’ll give the okay so that we can start vaccinating children, hopefully before the end of October.”
 

Lying to vaccinate now

More than half of all parents with children under 12 say they plan to get their kids vaccinated, according to a Gallup poll. Among those who say they’re “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about their children catching COVID, that number goes up to 90% and 72%, respectively.

And although the FDA and the American Academy of Pediatrics have warned against it, some parents whose children can pass for 12 have lied to get them vaccinated already.

Dawn G. is a mom of two in southwest Missouri, where less than 45% of the population has been fully vaccinated. Her son turns 12 in early October, but in-person school started in mid-August.

“It was scary, thinking of him going to school for even 2 months,” she said. “Some parents thought their kid had a low chance of getting COVID, and their kid died. Nobody expects it to be them.”

In July, she and her husband took their son to a walk-in clinic and lied about his age.

“So many things can happen, from bullying to school shootings, and now this added pandemic risk,” she said. “I’ll do anything I can to protect my child, and a birthdate seems so arbitrary. He’ll be 12 in a matter of weeks. It seems ridiculous that that date would stop me from protecting him.”

In northern California, Carrie S. had a similar thought. When the vaccine was authorized for children ages 12-15 in May, the older of her two children got the shot right away. But her youngest doesn’t turn 12 until November.

“We were tempted to get the younger one vaccinated in May, but it didn’t seem like a rush. We were willing to wait to get the dosage right,” she ssaid. “But as Delta came through, there were no options for online school, the CDC was dropping mask expectations –it seemed like the world was ready to forget the pandemic was happening. It seemed like the least-bad option to get her vaccinated so she could go back to school, and we could find some balance of risk in our lives.”
 

Adult vs. pediatric doses

For now, experts advise against getting younger children vaccinated, even those who are the size of an adult, because of the way the human immune system develops.

“It’s not really about size,” said Anne Liu, MD, an immunologist and pediatrics professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The immune system behaves differently at different ages. Younger kids tend to have a more exuberant innate immune system, which is the part of the immune system that senses danger, even before it has developed a memory response.”

The adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine contains 30 mcg of mRNA, while the pediatric dose is just 10 mcg. That smaller dose produces an immune response similar to what’s seen in adults who receive 30 mcg, according to Pfizer.

“We were one of the sites that was involved in the phase 1 trial, a lot of times that’s called a dose-finding trial,” said Michael Smith, MD, a coinvestigator for the COVID vaccine trials done at Duke University. “And basically, if younger kids got a higher dose, they had more of a reaction, so it hurt more. They had fever, they had more redness and swelling at the site of the injection, and they just felt lousy, more than at the lower doses.”

At this point, with Pfizer’s data showing that younger children need a smaller dose, it doesn’t make sense to lie about your child’s age, said Dr. Smith.

“If my two options were having my child get the infection versus getting the vaccine, I’d get the vaccine. But we’re a few weeks away from getting the lower dose approved in kids,” he said. “It’s certainly safer. I don’t expect major, lifelong side effects from the higher dose, but it’s going to hurt, your kid’s going to have a fever, they’re going to feel lousy for a couple days, and they just don’t need that much antigen.”

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

One week after reporting promising results from the trial of their COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 5-11, Pfizer and BioNTech announced they’d submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration. But that hasn’t stopped some parents from discreetly getting their children under age 12 vaccinated.

“The FDA, you never want to get ahead of their judgment,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC on Sept. 28. “But I would imagine in the next few weeks, they will examine that data and hopefully they’ll give the okay so that we can start vaccinating children, hopefully before the end of October.”
 

Lying to vaccinate now

More than half of all parents with children under 12 say they plan to get their kids vaccinated, according to a Gallup poll. Among those who say they’re “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about their children catching COVID, that number goes up to 90% and 72%, respectively.

And although the FDA and the American Academy of Pediatrics have warned against it, some parents whose children can pass for 12 have lied to get them vaccinated already.

Dawn G. is a mom of two in southwest Missouri, where less than 45% of the population has been fully vaccinated. Her son turns 12 in early October, but in-person school started in mid-August.

“It was scary, thinking of him going to school for even 2 months,” she said. “Some parents thought their kid had a low chance of getting COVID, and their kid died. Nobody expects it to be them.”

In July, she and her husband took their son to a walk-in clinic and lied about his age.

“So many things can happen, from bullying to school shootings, and now this added pandemic risk,” she said. “I’ll do anything I can to protect my child, and a birthdate seems so arbitrary. He’ll be 12 in a matter of weeks. It seems ridiculous that that date would stop me from protecting him.”

In northern California, Carrie S. had a similar thought. When the vaccine was authorized for children ages 12-15 in May, the older of her two children got the shot right away. But her youngest doesn’t turn 12 until November.

“We were tempted to get the younger one vaccinated in May, but it didn’t seem like a rush. We were willing to wait to get the dosage right,” she ssaid. “But as Delta came through, there were no options for online school, the CDC was dropping mask expectations –it seemed like the world was ready to forget the pandemic was happening. It seemed like the least-bad option to get her vaccinated so she could go back to school, and we could find some balance of risk in our lives.”
 

Adult vs. pediatric doses

For now, experts advise against getting younger children vaccinated, even those who are the size of an adult, because of the way the human immune system develops.

“It’s not really about size,” said Anne Liu, MD, an immunologist and pediatrics professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The immune system behaves differently at different ages. Younger kids tend to have a more exuberant innate immune system, which is the part of the immune system that senses danger, even before it has developed a memory response.”

The adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine contains 30 mcg of mRNA, while the pediatric dose is just 10 mcg. That smaller dose produces an immune response similar to what’s seen in adults who receive 30 mcg, according to Pfizer.

“We were one of the sites that was involved in the phase 1 trial, a lot of times that’s called a dose-finding trial,” said Michael Smith, MD, a coinvestigator for the COVID vaccine trials done at Duke University. “And basically, if younger kids got a higher dose, they had more of a reaction, so it hurt more. They had fever, they had more redness and swelling at the site of the injection, and they just felt lousy, more than at the lower doses.”

At this point, with Pfizer’s data showing that younger children need a smaller dose, it doesn’t make sense to lie about your child’s age, said Dr. Smith.

“If my two options were having my child get the infection versus getting the vaccine, I’d get the vaccine. But we’re a few weeks away from getting the lower dose approved in kids,” he said. “It’s certainly safer. I don’t expect major, lifelong side effects from the higher dose, but it’s going to hurt, your kid’s going to have a fever, they’re going to feel lousy for a couple days, and they just don’t need that much antigen.”

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

The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.

The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”

By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.

Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.

The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.

If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”

In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.

Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.

“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
 

Significance for retirement rate

Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.

Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”

Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.

But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.

In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
 

No mass exodus seen

Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.

While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”

One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.

“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
 

Demand for doctors has returned

In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.

Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.

Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.

“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”

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

The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.

The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”

By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.

Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.

The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.

If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”

In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.

Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.

“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
 

Significance for retirement rate

Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.

Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”

Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.

But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.

In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
 

No mass exodus seen

Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.

While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”

One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.

“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
 

Demand for doctors has returned

In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.

Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.

Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.

“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”

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

The number of physicians who have chosen early retirement or have left medicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic may be considerably lower than previously thought, results of a new study suggest.

The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association, based on Medicare claims data, stated that “practice interruption rates were similar before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, except for a spike in April 2020.”

By contrast, in a Physicians Foundation Survey conducted in August 2020, 8% of physicians said they had closed their practices as a result of COVID, and 4% of the respondents said they planned to leave their practices within the next 12 months.

Similarly, a Jackson Physician Search survey in the fourth quarter of 2020 found that 54% of physicians surveyed had changed their employment plans. Of those doctors, 21% said they might hang up their white coat for early retirement. That works out to about 11% of the respondents.

The JAMA study’s authors analyzed the Medicare claims data from Jan. 1, 2019, to Dec. 30, 2020, to see how many physicians with Medicare patients had stopped filing claims for a period during those 2 years.

If a doctor had ceased submitting claims and then resumed filing them within 6 months after the last billing month, the lapse in filing was defined as “interruption with return.” If a physician stopped filing claims to Medicare and did not resume within 6 months, the gap in filing was called “interruption without return.”

In April 2020, 6.9% of physicians billing Medicare had a practice interruption, compared to 1.4% in 2019. But only 1.1% of physicians stopped practice in April 2020 and did not return, compared with 0.33% in 2019.

Physicians aged 55 or older had higher rates of interruption both with and without return than younger doctors did. The change in interruption rates for older doctors was 7.2% vs. 3.9% for younger physicians. The change in older physicians’ interruption-without-return rate was 1.3% vs. 0.34% for younger colleagues.

“Female physicians, specialists, physicians in smaller practices, those not in a health professional shortage area, and those practicing in a metropolitan area experienced greater increases in practice interruption rates in April 2020 vs. April 2019,” the study states. “But those groups typically had higher rates of return, so the overall changes in practice interruptions without return were similar across characteristics other than age.”
 

Significance for retirement rate

Discussing these results, the authors stressed that practice interruptions without return can’t necessarily be attributed to retirement, and that practice interruptions with return don’t necessarily signify that doctors had been furloughed from their practices.

Also, they said, “this measure of practice interruption likely misses meaningful interruptions that lasted for less than a month or did not involve complete cessation in treating Medicare patients.”

Nevertheless, “the study does capture a signal of some doctors probably retiring,” Jonathan Weiner, DPH, professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview.

But he added, “Some of those people who interrupted their practices and didn’t return may still come back. And there are probably a lot of other doctors who are leaving or changing practices that they didn’t capture.” For example, it’s possible that some doctors who went to work for other health care organizations stopped billing under their own names.

In Dr. Weiner’s view, the true percentage of physicians who have retired since the start of the pandemic is probably somewhere between the portion of doctors who interrupted their practice without return, according to the JAMA study, and the percentage of physicians who said they had closed their practices in the Physicians Foundation survey.
 

No mass exodus seen

Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president of recruiting for Merritt Hawkins, a physician search firm, said in an interview that the real number may be closer to the interruption-without-return figure in the JAMA study.

While many physician practices were disrupted in spring of 2020, he said, “it really didn’t result in a mass exodus [from health care]. We’re not talking to a lot of candidates who retired or walked away from their practices. We are talking to candidates who slowed down last year and then realized that they wanted to get back into medicine. And now they’re actively looking.”

One change in job candidates’ attitude, Mr. Belkin said, is that, because of COVID-19–related burnout, their quality of life is more important to them.

“They want to know, ‘What’s the culture of the employer like? What did they do last year during COVID? How did they handle it? Have they put together any protocols for the next pandemic?’ “
 

Demand for doctors has returned

In the summer of 2020, there was a major drop in physician recruitment by hospitals and health systems, partly because of fewer patient visits and procedures. But demand for doctors has bounced back over the past year, Mr. Belkin noted. One reason is the pent-up need for care among patients who avoided health care providers in 2020.

Another reason is that some employed doctors – particularly older physicians – have slowed down. Many doctors prefer to work remotely 1 or 2 days a week, providing telehealth visits to patients. That has led to a loss of productivity in many health care organizations and, consequently, a need to hire additional physicians.

Nevertheless, not many doctors are heading for the exit earlier than physicians did before COVID-19.

“They may work reduced hours,” Mr. Belkin said. “But the sense from a physician’s perspective is that this is all they know. For them to walk away from their life in medicine, from who they are, is problematic. So they’re continuing to practice, but at a reduced capacity.”

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

Patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may benefit from a booster, but breakthrough infections will remain a risk, particularly in those with B-cell malignancies, an observational study suggests.

The findings, based on a review of COVID-19 booster vaccine recipients with B cell–derived hematologic malignancies from the prospective Leukemia & Lymphoma Society National Registry, provide valuable information about booster vaccinations in this vulnerable population, according to LLS chief medical officer and lead study author Gwen Nichols, MD.
 

The LLS Registry data

Of 49 patients included in the review, 38 failed to make antispike (anti-S) antibodies after full vaccination, and of those, 21 seroconverted after booster vaccination and 11 experienced seroelevation after the booster.

The patients who did not seroconvert were seronegative after initial vaccination and experienced no change in antibody level after the booster vaccination. In contrast, the 21 who seroconverted had a median 23.1 AU/ml increase in antibody level, Dr. Nichols, along with LLS chief scientific officer Lee M. Greenberger, PhD,and their colleagues reported online Sept. 6, 2021, in Cancer Cell.

Similar proportions of seroconverted patients had low-level responses between 2.2 and 23.1 AU/mL and robust response between 125 and 2,500 AU/mL, they noted. The 11 patients with seroelevation were seropositive after full vaccination and demonstrated a median increase of 2,128 AU/mL in antibody level after the booster vaccination.
 

Therapy effects on vaccine response

Outcomes of the current analysis also confirmed the authors’ previous finding, which suggested that “both disease and therapies can affect the serological response to vaccination,” they wrote, explaining that, among the 12 patients who received no malignancy-targeted treatments in the past 2 years, only 1 was a nonresponder, 7 demonstrated seroconversion, and 4 demonstrated seroelevation.

“In contrast, among the 21 patients who completed therapy with anti-CD20 antibodies either alone or in combination with other therapies, 12 patients were nonresponders, 7 patients demonstrated seroconversion, and 2 patients demonstrated seroelevation,” they added.

The authors also noted that five of seven patients who completed anti-CD20 antibody therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy at least 7 months prior to the booster vaccination demonstrated seroconversion or seroelevation, whereas many of the patients with recent or maintenance anti-CD20 antibody therapy before the booster vaccination failed to seroconvert afterward.

In light of previous findings showing B-cell recovery begins 6-9 months after rituximab therapy, these data suggest that recent anti-CD20 antibody-containing treatment regimens may suppress booster vaccination response, the authors wrote.

The current data also support the group’s prior finding that use of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor may suppress vaccine response: Of the patients in the current study who experienced seroelevation and were treated with a BTKi, two discontinued BTKi therapy 7-23 months prior to booster vaccination, one maintained a low dose of ibrutinib before booster vaccination, one maintained BTKi therapy continuously before and after the booster, and the two who experienced marked seroconversion after booster vaccination stopped BTKi therapy at least 4 months prior.

Conversely, five patients with a very weak seroconversion and two patients with moderate seroconversion maintained BTKi therapy during booster vaccination.

“These data suggest that BTKi therapy can interfere with a response to booster vaccination,” they wrote, noting, however, that “it is encouraging that seven patients ... maintained on a BTKi seroconverted or experienced seroelevation after booster vaccination and [this] is consistent with a previous report on one patient.”
 

Study limitations and lessons

Although the findings of this study are limited by the small number of patients, the fact that treatment and disease were patient reported, and a lack of data on “antibody responses, particularly to the delta variant, B-cell memory, or T-cell responses,” they nevertheless provide encouraging news, Dr. Nichols told this news organization.

“Many blood cancer patients are getting boosters and a good number are able to make antibody with an additional dose. This is giving us much needed information about boosters,” she said. “Through the LLS National Patient Registry, we anticipate having data on hundreds of more patients over the course of the next few months.”

The information is needed because data suggest that up to 25% of patients with hematologic malignancies fail to make anti-S antibodies after full COVID-19 vaccination and that seronegative patients may be especially vulnerable to breakthrough infections, she and her colleagues noted.

Patients with B-cell malignancies are at the highest risk, and this is particularly concerning as some patients with blood cancer who contracted COVID-19 in the prevaccine period of the pandemic had “prolonged, severe infections; generated variant strains; and demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates compared to the general population,” they said.

However, a recently published placebo-controlled trial that demonstrated a booster vaccination–mediated increase in anti-S antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in immunosuppressed patients, and the current review, which focused on patients who obtained booster vaccinations prior to Aug. 12, 2021 (when the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for booster doses in immunocompromised people), offer findings that suggest these patients may benefit from receiving COVID-19 boosters.

“We conclude that some patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after a full course of vaccination may benefit from a booster,” the authors wrote. They added a warning: “Regulators, patients, and health care providers should be aware that a sizable subset of patients with blood cancer may remain at risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infections after full vaccination followed by booster vaccination.”

Dr. Nichols stressed that the findings “do not in any way suggest that blood cancer patients should stop therapy to get an antibody response to the vaccinations.”

“LLS is encouraging blood cancer patients to get vaccinated and to continue taking preventive measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces,” she said.

Sergio Giralt, MD, professor and deputy head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, further emphasized the importance of preventive measures.

“I think the extra booster will go a long way to protect our patients at this time but should not be used as a replacement for masking indoors and continued social distancing in this vulnerable patient population,” he said.

This study was supported by the LLS.

[email protected]

Patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may benefit from a booster, but breakthrough infections will remain a risk, particularly in those with B-cell malignancies, an observational study suggests.

The findings, based on a review of COVID-19 booster vaccine recipients with B cell–derived hematologic malignancies from the prospective Leukemia & Lymphoma Society National Registry, provide valuable information about booster vaccinations in this vulnerable population, according to LLS chief medical officer and lead study author Gwen Nichols, MD.
 

The LLS Registry data

Of 49 patients included in the review, 38 failed to make antispike (anti-S) antibodies after full vaccination, and of those, 21 seroconverted after booster vaccination and 11 experienced seroelevation after the booster.

The patients who did not seroconvert were seronegative after initial vaccination and experienced no change in antibody level after the booster vaccination. In contrast, the 21 who seroconverted had a median 23.1 AU/ml increase in antibody level, Dr. Nichols, along with LLS chief scientific officer Lee M. Greenberger, PhD,and their colleagues reported online Sept. 6, 2021, in Cancer Cell.

Similar proportions of seroconverted patients had low-level responses between 2.2 and 23.1 AU/mL and robust response between 125 and 2,500 AU/mL, they noted. The 11 patients with seroelevation were seropositive after full vaccination and demonstrated a median increase of 2,128 AU/mL in antibody level after the booster vaccination.
 

Therapy effects on vaccine response

Outcomes of the current analysis also confirmed the authors’ previous finding, which suggested that “both disease and therapies can affect the serological response to vaccination,” they wrote, explaining that, among the 12 patients who received no malignancy-targeted treatments in the past 2 years, only 1 was a nonresponder, 7 demonstrated seroconversion, and 4 demonstrated seroelevation.

“In contrast, among the 21 patients who completed therapy with anti-CD20 antibodies either alone or in combination with other therapies, 12 patients were nonresponders, 7 patients demonstrated seroconversion, and 2 patients demonstrated seroelevation,” they added.

The authors also noted that five of seven patients who completed anti-CD20 antibody therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy at least 7 months prior to the booster vaccination demonstrated seroconversion or seroelevation, whereas many of the patients with recent or maintenance anti-CD20 antibody therapy before the booster vaccination failed to seroconvert afterward.

In light of previous findings showing B-cell recovery begins 6-9 months after rituximab therapy, these data suggest that recent anti-CD20 antibody-containing treatment regimens may suppress booster vaccination response, the authors wrote.

The current data also support the group’s prior finding that use of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor may suppress vaccine response: Of the patients in the current study who experienced seroelevation and were treated with a BTKi, two discontinued BTKi therapy 7-23 months prior to booster vaccination, one maintained a low dose of ibrutinib before booster vaccination, one maintained BTKi therapy continuously before and after the booster, and the two who experienced marked seroconversion after booster vaccination stopped BTKi therapy at least 4 months prior.

Conversely, five patients with a very weak seroconversion and two patients with moderate seroconversion maintained BTKi therapy during booster vaccination.

“These data suggest that BTKi therapy can interfere with a response to booster vaccination,” they wrote, noting, however, that “it is encouraging that seven patients ... maintained on a BTKi seroconverted or experienced seroelevation after booster vaccination and [this] is consistent with a previous report on one patient.”
 

Study limitations and lessons

Although the findings of this study are limited by the small number of patients, the fact that treatment and disease were patient reported, and a lack of data on “antibody responses, particularly to the delta variant, B-cell memory, or T-cell responses,” they nevertheless provide encouraging news, Dr. Nichols told this news organization.

“Many blood cancer patients are getting boosters and a good number are able to make antibody with an additional dose. This is giving us much needed information about boosters,” she said. “Through the LLS National Patient Registry, we anticipate having data on hundreds of more patients over the course of the next few months.”

The information is needed because data suggest that up to 25% of patients with hematologic malignancies fail to make anti-S antibodies after full COVID-19 vaccination and that seronegative patients may be especially vulnerable to breakthrough infections, she and her colleagues noted.

Patients with B-cell malignancies are at the highest risk, and this is particularly concerning as some patients with blood cancer who contracted COVID-19 in the prevaccine period of the pandemic had “prolonged, severe infections; generated variant strains; and demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates compared to the general population,” they said.

However, a recently published placebo-controlled trial that demonstrated a booster vaccination–mediated increase in anti-S antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in immunosuppressed patients, and the current review, which focused on patients who obtained booster vaccinations prior to Aug. 12, 2021 (when the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for booster doses in immunocompromised people), offer findings that suggest these patients may benefit from receiving COVID-19 boosters.

“We conclude that some patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after a full course of vaccination may benefit from a booster,” the authors wrote. They added a warning: “Regulators, patients, and health care providers should be aware that a sizable subset of patients with blood cancer may remain at risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infections after full vaccination followed by booster vaccination.”

Dr. Nichols stressed that the findings “do not in any way suggest that blood cancer patients should stop therapy to get an antibody response to the vaccinations.”

“LLS is encouraging blood cancer patients to get vaccinated and to continue taking preventive measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces,” she said.

Sergio Giralt, MD, professor and deputy head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, further emphasized the importance of preventive measures.

“I think the extra booster will go a long way to protect our patients at this time but should not be used as a replacement for masking indoors and continued social distancing in this vulnerable patient population,” he said.

This study was supported by the LLS.

[email protected]

Patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may benefit from a booster, but breakthrough infections will remain a risk, particularly in those with B-cell malignancies, an observational study suggests.

The findings, based on a review of COVID-19 booster vaccine recipients with B cell–derived hematologic malignancies from the prospective Leukemia & Lymphoma Society National Registry, provide valuable information about booster vaccinations in this vulnerable population, according to LLS chief medical officer and lead study author Gwen Nichols, MD.
 

The LLS Registry data

Of 49 patients included in the review, 38 failed to make antispike (anti-S) antibodies after full vaccination, and of those, 21 seroconverted after booster vaccination and 11 experienced seroelevation after the booster.

The patients who did not seroconvert were seronegative after initial vaccination and experienced no change in antibody level after the booster vaccination. In contrast, the 21 who seroconverted had a median 23.1 AU/ml increase in antibody level, Dr. Nichols, along with LLS chief scientific officer Lee M. Greenberger, PhD,and their colleagues reported online Sept. 6, 2021, in Cancer Cell.

Similar proportions of seroconverted patients had low-level responses between 2.2 and 23.1 AU/mL and robust response between 125 and 2,500 AU/mL, they noted. The 11 patients with seroelevation were seropositive after full vaccination and demonstrated a median increase of 2,128 AU/mL in antibody level after the booster vaccination.
 

Therapy effects on vaccine response

Outcomes of the current analysis also confirmed the authors’ previous finding, which suggested that “both disease and therapies can affect the serological response to vaccination,” they wrote, explaining that, among the 12 patients who received no malignancy-targeted treatments in the past 2 years, only 1 was a nonresponder, 7 demonstrated seroconversion, and 4 demonstrated seroelevation.

“In contrast, among the 21 patients who completed therapy with anti-CD20 antibodies either alone or in combination with other therapies, 12 patients were nonresponders, 7 patients demonstrated seroconversion, and 2 patients demonstrated seroelevation,” they added.

The authors also noted that five of seven patients who completed anti-CD20 antibody therapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy at least 7 months prior to the booster vaccination demonstrated seroconversion or seroelevation, whereas many of the patients with recent or maintenance anti-CD20 antibody therapy before the booster vaccination failed to seroconvert afterward.

In light of previous findings showing B-cell recovery begins 6-9 months after rituximab therapy, these data suggest that recent anti-CD20 antibody-containing treatment regimens may suppress booster vaccination response, the authors wrote.

The current data also support the group’s prior finding that use of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor may suppress vaccine response: Of the patients in the current study who experienced seroelevation and were treated with a BTKi, two discontinued BTKi therapy 7-23 months prior to booster vaccination, one maintained a low dose of ibrutinib before booster vaccination, one maintained BTKi therapy continuously before and after the booster, and the two who experienced marked seroconversion after booster vaccination stopped BTKi therapy at least 4 months prior.

Conversely, five patients with a very weak seroconversion and two patients with moderate seroconversion maintained BTKi therapy during booster vaccination.

“These data suggest that BTKi therapy can interfere with a response to booster vaccination,” they wrote, noting, however, that “it is encouraging that seven patients ... maintained on a BTKi seroconverted or experienced seroelevation after booster vaccination and [this] is consistent with a previous report on one patient.”
 

Study limitations and lessons

Although the findings of this study are limited by the small number of patients, the fact that treatment and disease were patient reported, and a lack of data on “antibody responses, particularly to the delta variant, B-cell memory, or T-cell responses,” they nevertheless provide encouraging news, Dr. Nichols told this news organization.

“Many blood cancer patients are getting boosters and a good number are able to make antibody with an additional dose. This is giving us much needed information about boosters,” she said. “Through the LLS National Patient Registry, we anticipate having data on hundreds of more patients over the course of the next few months.”

The information is needed because data suggest that up to 25% of patients with hematologic malignancies fail to make anti-S antibodies after full COVID-19 vaccination and that seronegative patients may be especially vulnerable to breakthrough infections, she and her colleagues noted.

Patients with B-cell malignancies are at the highest risk, and this is particularly concerning as some patients with blood cancer who contracted COVID-19 in the prevaccine period of the pandemic had “prolonged, severe infections; generated variant strains; and demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates compared to the general population,” they said.

However, a recently published placebo-controlled trial that demonstrated a booster vaccination–mediated increase in anti-S antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in immunosuppressed patients, and the current review, which focused on patients who obtained booster vaccinations prior to Aug. 12, 2021 (when the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for booster doses in immunocompromised people), offer findings that suggest these patients may benefit from receiving COVID-19 boosters.

“We conclude that some patients with hematologic malignancies who are seronegative after a full course of vaccination may benefit from a booster,” the authors wrote. They added a warning: “Regulators, patients, and health care providers should be aware that a sizable subset of patients with blood cancer may remain at risk of breakthrough COVID-19 infections after full vaccination followed by booster vaccination.”

Dr. Nichols stressed that the findings “do not in any way suggest that blood cancer patients should stop therapy to get an antibody response to the vaccinations.”

“LLS is encouraging blood cancer patients to get vaccinated and to continue taking preventive measures such as wearing masks, social distancing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces,” she said.

Sergio Giralt, MD, professor and deputy head of the division of hematologic malignancies at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, further emphasized the importance of preventive measures.

“I think the extra booster will go a long way to protect our patients at this time but should not be used as a replacement for masking indoors and continued social distancing in this vulnerable patient population,” he said.

This study was supported by the LLS.

[email protected]

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Judy C. Washington, MD, a mentor of many young academic family physicians, particularly underrepresented-in-medicine (URM) physicians, advises her mentees on how to see ahead and plot paths to leadership.

Courtesy Dr. Judy C. Washington

For URM physicians, she also imparts a shared experience of being a minority in the field and helps prepare them for the challenges of facing racism or feeling marginalized or not equitably supported in academic life – and for making change.

While family medicine’s demographics have become more diverse over time, and more so than other specialties, they are not yet representative of the U.S. population. Within academia, male physicians who are Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, comprised about 4% and 5% of family medicine faculty, respectively, at the end of 2019, according to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. For women, these numbers were about 9% and 4%, respectively. (Only those with an MD degree exclusively were included in the report.)

“When you have the privilege to serve in leadership, you have the responsibility to reach back and identify and help others who would not otherwise have the opportunity to be recognized,” Dr. Washington said.

Her mentorship work stems in large part from her long-time involvement and leadership roles in the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) – roles she considers a pillar of her professional life. She currently serves as president of the STFM Foundation and is associate chief medical officer of the Atlantic Medical Group, a large multisite physician-led organization. She is also coordinator of women’s health for the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program, which is affiliated with Atlantic Medical Group.

In Dr. Washington’s role as associate chief medical officer of Atlantic Medical Group in Summit, N.J., she focuses on physician engagement, satisfaction, and diversity. She also assists in areas such as population health. For the Overlook Family Medicine Residency Program also in Summit, she precepts residents in the obstetrics clinic and in the family medicine outpatient clinic.

Diana N. Carvajal, MD, MPH, one of Dr. Washington’s mentees, called her an “inspirational leader” for young academic faculty and said she is a familiar speaker at STFM meetings on topics of workforce diversity, equity, and leadership. She is “passionate” about mentorship, Dr. Carvajal said, and has understood “that URMs and women of color were not always getting [the mentorship they need to be successful].”
 

Guiding future leaders

Ivonne McLean, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and an attending at a community health center in the Bronx, called Dr. Washington for advice a couple of years ago when she was considering her next career move.

Courtesy Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Foundation

“She took a genuine interest in me. She never said, this is what you should do. But the questions she asked and the examples she gave from her own life were incredibly helpful to me [in deciding to pursue a research fellowship] ... it was a pivotal conversation,” said Dr. McLean, associate director of a reproductive health fellowship and a research fellow in a New York State–funded program.

“From a lived experience angle, she also told me, here are some of the challenges you’ll have as a woman of color, and here are some of the ways you can approach that,” she said.

Dr. Carvajal, also a URM family physician, credits Dr. Washington’s mentorship with the development of a day-long workshop – held before the annual Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) meeting – on the low and declining rates of Black males in medicine. “We’d planned it as a presentation, and [she heard of it and] helped us expand it,” she said, calling Dr. Washington “warm, welcoming, and encouraging.

“That work and collaboration with her and the others she brought [into the process] have resulted in publications and more presentations and strategy building for diversifying the workforce,” said Dr. Carvajal, assistant professor, director of reproductive health education in family medicine, and codirector of the research section, all in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

STFM involvement

Dr. Washington, who says that all or almost all of her mentees are now leaders in their academic institutions and communities, has been instrumental in developing STFM’s mentoring programming and in facilitating the organization’s multifaceted URM Initiative.

She has been active in STFM since the start of her academic career, and in 2009, while serving as assistant program director for the residency program in which she’d trained, she joined two other African American women, Monique Y. Davis-Smith, MD, and Joedrecka Brown-Speights, MD, in cochairing the society’s Group on Minority and Multicultural Health.

It was in this space, that Dr. Washington said she “heard people’s stories of being in major academic institutions and not feeling supported, not being given roadmaps to success, not getting assistance with publishing, or just kind of feeling like an outsider ... of not being pulled in.” Hispanic and African American females, in particular, “were feeling marginalized,” she said.

In 2018, having co-led development of the STFM Quality Mentoring Program for URM faculty, Dr. Washington was asked to join the STFM Foundation and subsequently led the STFM Foundation’s fundraising campaign for a new URM Initiative. She exceeded her goal, increasing support for URM participation in meetings and activities, and then participated in an STFM steering committee to create broader and longer-lasting support for URM faculty, community teachers, and medical students and residents going into academic family medicine.

Increasing the percentage of URM family medicine faculty in leadership positions – and raising awareness of structural barriers to achievement – is one of the current pillars of the URM Initiative.
 

Navigating the ‘minority tax’

As part of her mentoring, Dr. Washington helps URM physicians navigate the minority tax – a term referring to the uncompensated citizenship tasks that are more often assigned to Black and other URM physicians than to White physicians, and that take time away from scholarship, further perpetuating inequities.

Courtesy Society of Teahcers of Family Medicine Foundation

“Some of our young faculty members find themselves thrust into being the diversity and inclusion leaders in their institutions at a level at which they feel little power and little buy-in from [leadership],” she noted.

A commentary written by Dr. Washington and several colleagues on the minority tax as it impacts women – and the need to build a “tax shelter” to make academic medicine a more just environment for URM women – was published earlier this year in the Journal of Women’s Health.

She also answers e-mails and fields phone calls from young URM faculty who are mulling career moves and facing other familiar challenges.

Physicians who are URM, and African American physicians in particular, tend to “get pulled into the [often underserved] communities, into the patient care and community service areas,” Dr. Washington explained. “But unless you convert these projects into scholarship and publications, and unless you serve on a national committee outside of your institution, you’re not going to be promoted.”

Dr. Washington helps junior faculty envision themselves 5-plus years down the road, find what she calls scholarly “passion projects,” and prepare themselves for their next steps.

She helps her mentees navigate other parts of the continuum of unconscious bias and racism as well, from microaggressions from colleagues to overt discrimination from patients.

“I spend countless minutes fielding texts and phone calls from those who need support,” she wrote in a blog post. “They are a constant reminder that I must continue to speak up when I get the opportunity to do so.”
 

A journey through family medicine, and through bias and racism

Dr. Washington’s early days in medicine included graduating from Meharry Medical College in 1983 and the Mountainside Family Practice Residency Program in 1990. Following 6 years of working in a private practice in rural Maryland, she moved to academia, spending 6 years at East Tennessee State University and 4 years at the UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School in Newark as an assistant professor of family medicine.

As had happened in rural Maryland, bias and racism have too often lurked during her career as a physician.

“I grew up in Alabama so I was pretty much ready to deal with racism in the South,” Dr. Washington said. “What I was not ready for was coming to the Northeast and seeing that you’re marginalized because you’re not invited into the room. Or if you do go into spaces when you’re the only one, you often don’t feel as welcomed as you thought you might be.”

Her ideas and contributions were too often dismissed, she wrote in a 2020 blog entry posted on her LinkedIn page. And during contract negotiations, “I was not aware of all the information that my White colleagues had. They had the advantage of inside information.”

Dr. Washington says that “it took a village” to make her who she is today: teachers in her segregated schools in Alabama, one of her college professors, her best friend in medical school – and STFM, “where the list [of her own mentors] is long.”

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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