User login
Change Doesn’t Come Easy! But Is Needed
In selecting the subject of his presidential address, SVS President Michel Makaroun, MD, decided to focus on the inadequacy of vascular manpower to meet the demands and needs of the public.
In introducing the subject, he quoted a favorite saying from Mark Twain that gave him the topic of his address, “I am in favor of progress; it’s change I don’t like.” He then proceeded to outline why changes are necessary and what the Society for Vascular Surgery is doing to help implement them.
“You are all familiar with the highlights of the problem: It is in our numbers! A problem with multiple facets, including unfilled jobs, increasing demand, maldistribution and a demographic cliff of our membership,” Dr. Makaroun said.
The manifestations of this shortage are multiple. The number of advertised jobs far exceeds the number of graduates. There is also a significant maldistribution of the workforce. “We are concentrated in the northeast, and many populous states including Texas, Florida and California are well below average,” he said.
Additionally, many community hospitals, in both suburban areas or small towns completely lack any access to vascular surgical care, even in states with seemingly adequate numbers.
The shortage problem in vascular surgery will get worse before it gets better, he added, saying “Our pipeline is simply not large enough to overcome an older retiring generation of vascular surgeons, with nearly half retiring before 65.”
“Change does not come easy!” Dr. Makaroun warned.
“We cannot ignore in the discussion of workforce issues, the major shifts, change and uncertainty we are experiencing in health care delivery, education and the generational change of our newest members,” he said.
More than 10% of vascular surgeons now practice primarily if not exclusively in ambulatory facilities. This direction is gathering steam and reduces the pool of vascular surgeons available to accept hospital practices and cover emergencies, particularly in underserved communities.
Despite this movement, nearly two-thirds of SVS members are currently employed by hospital systems that are getting larger and larger, making it essential to navigate an ever more complex decision-making process in employment, compensation and spectrum of activities. Practice environments are becoming more corporate and bureaucratic.
Dr. Makaroun pointed out that the current landscape of our manpower has a clear two tiers divided by hospital size and location. “The most pressing concern is the inability of our specialty to provide vascular surgery services to the multitude of hospitals located in smaller communities.
“The SVS established a task force to study our manpower issues last fall. The taskforce was divided into three workgroups to focus on different areas of the problem.
The first workgroup, under the leadership of Malachi Sheehan III, MD, and Jeffrey Jim, MD, focused on the obvious solution: a campaign to increase training programs and available positions. Unfortunately, this is only aspirational, since reality fails the SVS in this effort. The pool of general surgery graduates is finite, with competition from several specialties that are more analogous to modern general surgery than vascular surgery.
Increasing the number of integrated programs is less efficient because of a 5- to 6-year lag between initiation of a new program and graduation, but it can tap into an almost unlimited pool of applicants from medical school, and more recently some very qualified international medical graduates. This makes it potentially a far more effective solution for the long term, Dr. Makaroun said.
The workgroup attempted to contact all hospitals with a general surgery program and no associated vascular fellowship. Help in navigating the process of securing financing and applying for a new program was offered. A session was conducted at VAM for interested potential sites to start discussing the process, and representatives from 27 hospitals were there expressing interest.
The second workgroup, under the leadership of Rick Powell, MD, and Andy Schanzer, MD, was tasked with analyzing and understanding the entire spectrum of surgeons’ clinical activities and producing a valuation study that illustrates the economic and vital impact of vascular surgery for hospitals and patients. “The work of this group is essential to promote a healthier relationship between our specialty and our institutions, making vascular surgery more attractive for future recruits,” according to Dr. Makaroun.
The third workgroup under the leadership of Will Jordan, MD, and Tim Sarac, MD, had the toughest job, said Dr. Makaroun. It was tasked with thinking outside the box and suggesting methods to address the most glaring need: the community hospitals, where most of the advertised jobs are, jobs that are being shunned by graduates of current training programs.
Dr. Makaroun cited the difficulties of recruitment of vascular surgeons to community hospital systems in small towns and rural areas, and he reminded people that recent general surgery graduates continue to offer vascular surgery services in such communities. Unfortunately, this is without any additional vascular training and most hospitals grant privileges without a VSB certificate when the need is demonstrated. “You all appreciate that recent graduates of general surgery programs do not have the breadth or depth of exposure to modern vascular surgery that an older generation did,” he added.
The workgroup explored many options to provide relief to community hospitals. But probably the most efficient, according to Dr. Makaroun, is to consider strategies that tap into new constituencies. One consideration to be explored is to offer a 3-year vascular surgery training opportunity to the dozens of qualified candidates in preliminary surgical positions unable to locate a categorical spot to finish their training. This process will lead to VSB certification, but will take some time to establish through the ACGME structure.
The workgroup developed an outline of a proposal for a community vascular surgery training program, as a first step. It has been sketched and will be part of the task force report submitted for review by the Executive Board of the Society.
The goals of the new pathway would be to improve local vascular care in underserved communities, while increasing the referral of appropriate cases to vascular centers. It would provide stress relief to isolated vascular surgeons, and where none exist, plant the seeds of a better work environment for vascular surgery graduates to reconsider this currently undesirable career choice.
The program is designed to offer an additional year of vascular surgery training to general surgery graduates already committed to a community practice, many of whom are already planning to offer vascular services anyway. The program will individualize training but focus only on low-complexity procedures, both open and endovascular, and more importantly the clinical situations that dictate referral, said Dr. Makaroun.
To maintain quality, the program will mandate the availability of mentorship, support and real-time advice after completion of the program, through a regional “sponsoring vascular surgery service.” This service will also be responsible for retrospective peer review and root cause analysis of complications. In addition, the association with a sponsoring institution will facilitate and increase referrals of appropriate patients to higher level of care at a vascular surgery center.
“The suggested program graduates will not be board-certified and will be performing mostly general surgery and low-complexity vascular cases part- time in smaller communities. They will also require supervision by the board-certified graduates of the current training pathways, working in a regional vascular center, typically in a larger urban center. Instead of competing they will actually complement our current trainees and provide an extension of their reach.” Dr. Makaroun stated.
“We must find a way to fill the vacuum now before the reality on the ground permanently excludes our specialty from this primary level of vascular care,” Dr. Makaroun said. “It is time for another bold step to preserve the legacy of our specialty in meeting the needs of our patients and the public.
“Progress is made through change even if we don’t like it!” Dr. Makaroun concluded.
In selecting the subject of his presidential address, SVS President Michel Makaroun, MD, decided to focus on the inadequacy of vascular manpower to meet the demands and needs of the public.
In introducing the subject, he quoted a favorite saying from Mark Twain that gave him the topic of his address, “I am in favor of progress; it’s change I don’t like.” He then proceeded to outline why changes are necessary and what the Society for Vascular Surgery is doing to help implement them.
“You are all familiar with the highlights of the problem: It is in our numbers! A problem with multiple facets, including unfilled jobs, increasing demand, maldistribution and a demographic cliff of our membership,” Dr. Makaroun said.
The manifestations of this shortage are multiple. The number of advertised jobs far exceeds the number of graduates. There is also a significant maldistribution of the workforce. “We are concentrated in the northeast, and many populous states including Texas, Florida and California are well below average,” he said.
Additionally, many community hospitals, in both suburban areas or small towns completely lack any access to vascular surgical care, even in states with seemingly adequate numbers.
The shortage problem in vascular surgery will get worse before it gets better, he added, saying “Our pipeline is simply not large enough to overcome an older retiring generation of vascular surgeons, with nearly half retiring before 65.”
“Change does not come easy!” Dr. Makaroun warned.
“We cannot ignore in the discussion of workforce issues, the major shifts, change and uncertainty we are experiencing in health care delivery, education and the generational change of our newest members,” he said.
More than 10% of vascular surgeons now practice primarily if not exclusively in ambulatory facilities. This direction is gathering steam and reduces the pool of vascular surgeons available to accept hospital practices and cover emergencies, particularly in underserved communities.
Despite this movement, nearly two-thirds of SVS members are currently employed by hospital systems that are getting larger and larger, making it essential to navigate an ever more complex decision-making process in employment, compensation and spectrum of activities. Practice environments are becoming more corporate and bureaucratic.
Dr. Makaroun pointed out that the current landscape of our manpower has a clear two tiers divided by hospital size and location. “The most pressing concern is the inability of our specialty to provide vascular surgery services to the multitude of hospitals located in smaller communities.
“The SVS established a task force to study our manpower issues last fall. The taskforce was divided into three workgroups to focus on different areas of the problem.
The first workgroup, under the leadership of Malachi Sheehan III, MD, and Jeffrey Jim, MD, focused on the obvious solution: a campaign to increase training programs and available positions. Unfortunately, this is only aspirational, since reality fails the SVS in this effort. The pool of general surgery graduates is finite, with competition from several specialties that are more analogous to modern general surgery than vascular surgery.
Increasing the number of integrated programs is less efficient because of a 5- to 6-year lag between initiation of a new program and graduation, but it can tap into an almost unlimited pool of applicants from medical school, and more recently some very qualified international medical graduates. This makes it potentially a far more effective solution for the long term, Dr. Makaroun said.
The workgroup attempted to contact all hospitals with a general surgery program and no associated vascular fellowship. Help in navigating the process of securing financing and applying for a new program was offered. A session was conducted at VAM for interested potential sites to start discussing the process, and representatives from 27 hospitals were there expressing interest.
The second workgroup, under the leadership of Rick Powell, MD, and Andy Schanzer, MD, was tasked with analyzing and understanding the entire spectrum of surgeons’ clinical activities and producing a valuation study that illustrates the economic and vital impact of vascular surgery for hospitals and patients. “The work of this group is essential to promote a healthier relationship between our specialty and our institutions, making vascular surgery more attractive for future recruits,” according to Dr. Makaroun.
The third workgroup under the leadership of Will Jordan, MD, and Tim Sarac, MD, had the toughest job, said Dr. Makaroun. It was tasked with thinking outside the box and suggesting methods to address the most glaring need: the community hospitals, where most of the advertised jobs are, jobs that are being shunned by graduates of current training programs.
Dr. Makaroun cited the difficulties of recruitment of vascular surgeons to community hospital systems in small towns and rural areas, and he reminded people that recent general surgery graduates continue to offer vascular surgery services in such communities. Unfortunately, this is without any additional vascular training and most hospitals grant privileges without a VSB certificate when the need is demonstrated. “You all appreciate that recent graduates of general surgery programs do not have the breadth or depth of exposure to modern vascular surgery that an older generation did,” he added.
The workgroup explored many options to provide relief to community hospitals. But probably the most efficient, according to Dr. Makaroun, is to consider strategies that tap into new constituencies. One consideration to be explored is to offer a 3-year vascular surgery training opportunity to the dozens of qualified candidates in preliminary surgical positions unable to locate a categorical spot to finish their training. This process will lead to VSB certification, but will take some time to establish through the ACGME structure.
The workgroup developed an outline of a proposal for a community vascular surgery training program, as a first step. It has been sketched and will be part of the task force report submitted for review by the Executive Board of the Society.
The goals of the new pathway would be to improve local vascular care in underserved communities, while increasing the referral of appropriate cases to vascular centers. It would provide stress relief to isolated vascular surgeons, and where none exist, plant the seeds of a better work environment for vascular surgery graduates to reconsider this currently undesirable career choice.
The program is designed to offer an additional year of vascular surgery training to general surgery graduates already committed to a community practice, many of whom are already planning to offer vascular services anyway. The program will individualize training but focus only on low-complexity procedures, both open and endovascular, and more importantly the clinical situations that dictate referral, said Dr. Makaroun.
To maintain quality, the program will mandate the availability of mentorship, support and real-time advice after completion of the program, through a regional “sponsoring vascular surgery service.” This service will also be responsible for retrospective peer review and root cause analysis of complications. In addition, the association with a sponsoring institution will facilitate and increase referrals of appropriate patients to higher level of care at a vascular surgery center.
“The suggested program graduates will not be board-certified and will be performing mostly general surgery and low-complexity vascular cases part- time in smaller communities. They will also require supervision by the board-certified graduates of the current training pathways, working in a regional vascular center, typically in a larger urban center. Instead of competing they will actually complement our current trainees and provide an extension of their reach.” Dr. Makaroun stated.
“We must find a way to fill the vacuum now before the reality on the ground permanently excludes our specialty from this primary level of vascular care,” Dr. Makaroun said. “It is time for another bold step to preserve the legacy of our specialty in meeting the needs of our patients and the public.
“Progress is made through change even if we don’t like it!” Dr. Makaroun concluded.
In selecting the subject of his presidential address, SVS President Michel Makaroun, MD, decided to focus on the inadequacy of vascular manpower to meet the demands and needs of the public.
In introducing the subject, he quoted a favorite saying from Mark Twain that gave him the topic of his address, “I am in favor of progress; it’s change I don’t like.” He then proceeded to outline why changes are necessary and what the Society for Vascular Surgery is doing to help implement them.
“You are all familiar with the highlights of the problem: It is in our numbers! A problem with multiple facets, including unfilled jobs, increasing demand, maldistribution and a demographic cliff of our membership,” Dr. Makaroun said.
The manifestations of this shortage are multiple. The number of advertised jobs far exceeds the number of graduates. There is also a significant maldistribution of the workforce. “We are concentrated in the northeast, and many populous states including Texas, Florida and California are well below average,” he said.
Additionally, many community hospitals, in both suburban areas or small towns completely lack any access to vascular surgical care, even in states with seemingly adequate numbers.
The shortage problem in vascular surgery will get worse before it gets better, he added, saying “Our pipeline is simply not large enough to overcome an older retiring generation of vascular surgeons, with nearly half retiring before 65.”
“Change does not come easy!” Dr. Makaroun warned.
“We cannot ignore in the discussion of workforce issues, the major shifts, change and uncertainty we are experiencing in health care delivery, education and the generational change of our newest members,” he said.
More than 10% of vascular surgeons now practice primarily if not exclusively in ambulatory facilities. This direction is gathering steam and reduces the pool of vascular surgeons available to accept hospital practices and cover emergencies, particularly in underserved communities.
Despite this movement, nearly two-thirds of SVS members are currently employed by hospital systems that are getting larger and larger, making it essential to navigate an ever more complex decision-making process in employment, compensation and spectrum of activities. Practice environments are becoming more corporate and bureaucratic.
Dr. Makaroun pointed out that the current landscape of our manpower has a clear two tiers divided by hospital size and location. “The most pressing concern is the inability of our specialty to provide vascular surgery services to the multitude of hospitals located in smaller communities.
“The SVS established a task force to study our manpower issues last fall. The taskforce was divided into three workgroups to focus on different areas of the problem.
The first workgroup, under the leadership of Malachi Sheehan III, MD, and Jeffrey Jim, MD, focused on the obvious solution: a campaign to increase training programs and available positions. Unfortunately, this is only aspirational, since reality fails the SVS in this effort. The pool of general surgery graduates is finite, with competition from several specialties that are more analogous to modern general surgery than vascular surgery.
Increasing the number of integrated programs is less efficient because of a 5- to 6-year lag between initiation of a new program and graduation, but it can tap into an almost unlimited pool of applicants from medical school, and more recently some very qualified international medical graduates. This makes it potentially a far more effective solution for the long term, Dr. Makaroun said.
The workgroup attempted to contact all hospitals with a general surgery program and no associated vascular fellowship. Help in navigating the process of securing financing and applying for a new program was offered. A session was conducted at VAM for interested potential sites to start discussing the process, and representatives from 27 hospitals were there expressing interest.
The second workgroup, under the leadership of Rick Powell, MD, and Andy Schanzer, MD, was tasked with analyzing and understanding the entire spectrum of surgeons’ clinical activities and producing a valuation study that illustrates the economic and vital impact of vascular surgery for hospitals and patients. “The work of this group is essential to promote a healthier relationship between our specialty and our institutions, making vascular surgery more attractive for future recruits,” according to Dr. Makaroun.
The third workgroup under the leadership of Will Jordan, MD, and Tim Sarac, MD, had the toughest job, said Dr. Makaroun. It was tasked with thinking outside the box and suggesting methods to address the most glaring need: the community hospitals, where most of the advertised jobs are, jobs that are being shunned by graduates of current training programs.
Dr. Makaroun cited the difficulties of recruitment of vascular surgeons to community hospital systems in small towns and rural areas, and he reminded people that recent general surgery graduates continue to offer vascular surgery services in such communities. Unfortunately, this is without any additional vascular training and most hospitals grant privileges without a VSB certificate when the need is demonstrated. “You all appreciate that recent graduates of general surgery programs do not have the breadth or depth of exposure to modern vascular surgery that an older generation did,” he added.
The workgroup explored many options to provide relief to community hospitals. But probably the most efficient, according to Dr. Makaroun, is to consider strategies that tap into new constituencies. One consideration to be explored is to offer a 3-year vascular surgery training opportunity to the dozens of qualified candidates in preliminary surgical positions unable to locate a categorical spot to finish their training. This process will lead to VSB certification, but will take some time to establish through the ACGME structure.
The workgroup developed an outline of a proposal for a community vascular surgery training program, as a first step. It has been sketched and will be part of the task force report submitted for review by the Executive Board of the Society.
The goals of the new pathway would be to improve local vascular care in underserved communities, while increasing the referral of appropriate cases to vascular centers. It would provide stress relief to isolated vascular surgeons, and where none exist, plant the seeds of a better work environment for vascular surgery graduates to reconsider this currently undesirable career choice.
The program is designed to offer an additional year of vascular surgery training to general surgery graduates already committed to a community practice, many of whom are already planning to offer vascular services anyway. The program will individualize training but focus only on low-complexity procedures, both open and endovascular, and more importantly the clinical situations that dictate referral, said Dr. Makaroun.
To maintain quality, the program will mandate the availability of mentorship, support and real-time advice after completion of the program, through a regional “sponsoring vascular surgery service.” This service will also be responsible for retrospective peer review and root cause analysis of complications. In addition, the association with a sponsoring institution will facilitate and increase referrals of appropriate patients to higher level of care at a vascular surgery center.
“The suggested program graduates will not be board-certified and will be performing mostly general surgery and low-complexity vascular cases part- time in smaller communities. They will also require supervision by the board-certified graduates of the current training pathways, working in a regional vascular center, typically in a larger urban center. Instead of competing they will actually complement our current trainees and provide an extension of their reach.” Dr. Makaroun stated.
“We must find a way to fill the vacuum now before the reality on the ground permanently excludes our specialty from this primary level of vascular care,” Dr. Makaroun said. “It is time for another bold step to preserve the legacy of our specialty in meeting the needs of our patients and the public.
“Progress is made through change even if we don’t like it!” Dr. Makaroun concluded.
Chemoradiotherapy no better than chemo alone in endometrial carcinoma
Chemotherapy plus radiation therapy (chemoradiotherapy) was not associated with improved relapse-free survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial cancer, according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“This combined approach has been studied, but its efficacy relative to that of chemotherapy alone is not known,” wrote Daniela Matei, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 258 study included 736 patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus volume–directed external-beam radiation therapy every 21 days for a total of four cycles or chemotherapy alone every 21 days for a total of six cycles.
The primary endpoint measured was relapse-free survival; secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life.
At 60 months, the proportion of patients alive and relapse free was 59% (95% confidence interval, 53-65) and 58% (95% CI, 53-64) in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.90; 90% CI, 0.74-1.10).
“The data on overall survival are not sufficiently mature to allow comparison between the groups,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicities were reported in 58% and 63% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively.
“Although acute toxic effects were more common in the chemoradiotherapy group than in the chemotherapy-only group in our trial, most were low-grade and reversible on treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Matei and colleagues explained.
A major strength of the study was the broad inclusion criteria, which included patients with nonperitoneal, lymph-node, pelvic, and adnexal metastasis, the researchers noted.
“Our data are compatible with the hypothesis from previous studies that completion of chemotherapy is important for the prevention of distant relapse,” they concluded.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech, the GOG Foundation, Tesaro, and several others.
SOURCE: Matei D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813181.
Chemotherapy plus radiation therapy (chemoradiotherapy) was not associated with improved relapse-free survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial cancer, according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“This combined approach has been studied, but its efficacy relative to that of chemotherapy alone is not known,” wrote Daniela Matei, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 258 study included 736 patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus volume–directed external-beam radiation therapy every 21 days for a total of four cycles or chemotherapy alone every 21 days for a total of six cycles.
The primary endpoint measured was relapse-free survival; secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life.
At 60 months, the proportion of patients alive and relapse free was 59% (95% confidence interval, 53-65) and 58% (95% CI, 53-64) in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.90; 90% CI, 0.74-1.10).
“The data on overall survival are not sufficiently mature to allow comparison between the groups,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicities were reported in 58% and 63% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively.
“Although acute toxic effects were more common in the chemoradiotherapy group than in the chemotherapy-only group in our trial, most were low-grade and reversible on treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Matei and colleagues explained.
A major strength of the study was the broad inclusion criteria, which included patients with nonperitoneal, lymph-node, pelvic, and adnexal metastasis, the researchers noted.
“Our data are compatible with the hypothesis from previous studies that completion of chemotherapy is important for the prevention of distant relapse,” they concluded.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech, the GOG Foundation, Tesaro, and several others.
SOURCE: Matei D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813181.
Chemotherapy plus radiation therapy (chemoradiotherapy) was not associated with improved relapse-free survival versus chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial cancer, according to results from a phase 3 trial.
“This combined approach has been studied, but its efficacy relative to that of chemotherapy alone is not known,” wrote Daniela Matei, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 258 study included 736 patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma who were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus volume–directed external-beam radiation therapy every 21 days for a total of four cycles or chemotherapy alone every 21 days for a total of six cycles.
The primary endpoint measured was relapse-free survival; secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life.
At 60 months, the proportion of patients alive and relapse free was 59% (95% confidence interval, 53-65) and 58% (95% CI, 53-64) in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.90; 90% CI, 0.74-1.10).
“The data on overall survival are not sufficiently mature to allow comparison between the groups,” the researchers wrote.
With respect to safety, grade 3, 4, or 5 toxicities were reported in 58% and 63% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone arms, respectively.
“Although acute toxic effects were more common in the chemoradiotherapy group than in the chemotherapy-only group in our trial, most were low-grade and reversible on treatment discontinuation,” Dr. Matei and colleagues explained.
A major strength of the study was the broad inclusion criteria, which included patients with nonperitoneal, lymph-node, pelvic, and adnexal metastasis, the researchers noted.
“Our data are compatible with the hypothesis from previous studies that completion of chemotherapy is important for the prevention of distant relapse,” they concluded.
The National Cancer Institute supported the study. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech, the GOG Foundation, Tesaro, and several others.
SOURCE: Matei D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813181.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Consider iatrogenesis in patients with new psychiatric symptoms
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Be aware of the potential iatrogenic properties of medications prescribed when patients present with new psychiatric symptoms, Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Drugs that can cause iatrogenic psychiatric symptoms include stimulants, anabolic steroids, ACE inhibitors, anticholinergics, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, beta-adrenergic blockers, dopamine receptor agonists, among many others. A diverse class of medications can cause depression, anxiety, mania, and psychotic symptoms, and some medications cause multiple iatrogenic effects.
“Iatrogenic psychopathology can occur with a wide array of medications that are used in general medical practice,” said Dr. Nasrallah, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry and professor and chairman of the department of neurology and psychiatry at Saint Louis University. For example, the drug reserpine can cause depression in about 10% of cases, and corticosteroids can cause mood disorders such as depression or mania in about 6% of cases.
In other situations, use of alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, opioids, and other recreational drugs can cause psychiatric symptoms, and withdrawal from alcohol and sedatives can induce psychosis.
The DSM-5 defines a psychiatric disorder as a disorder that is not caused by a general medical condition and is not attributable to recreational or prescription drugs. However, a direct causal connection is sometimes difficult to establish, said Dr. Nasrallah, because psychiatric symptoms that manifest during treatment with prescription medications also could be tied to an underlying medical illness, psychosocial factors, withdrawal from a different prescription medication, or an unrecognized psychopathology. To confirm the drug is causing the disorder, clinicians should also rechallenge the patient.
he said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “First-episode psychiatric disorder is always suspect. Iatrogenesis can occur for the first time in a patient who never had that symptom before, so you suspect it might be iatrogenic.”
Some drugs might induce psychiatric symptoms at higher but not lower doses, he added.
Other risk factors for iatrogenesis include simultaneous use of prescription medications, administration method, narrow therapeutic index, and rapid titration. Patients with slow metabolisms or hepatic insufficiency are at risk for iatrogenesis, as are those who are very young or very old, in stressful settings, or in a postpartum period.
Evaluate when psychiatric symptoms occurred, whether symptoms worsened and when, the dates of medication use, rechallenge and dechallenge dates, and any previous history of psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Nasrallah, who holds the Sydney W. Souers Endowed Chair at the university. If a patient is using more than one medication at a time, record the dates of each drug and their discontinuations.
Determine when the iatrogenesis occurred with psychiatric drugs, Dr. Nasrallah noted. “Iatrogenesis can complicate the course and outcome of the main medical or psychiatric illness being treated. Sometimes psychiatric medication can cause iatrogenic medical conditions; it’s not just a one-way street.”
Dr. Nasrallah reported receiving research grants from Forest, Forum, and Otsuka. In addition, he is a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva, and he serves on the speaker’s bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Janssen, Otsuka, and Sunovion.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Be aware of the potential iatrogenic properties of medications prescribed when patients present with new psychiatric symptoms, Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Drugs that can cause iatrogenic psychiatric symptoms include stimulants, anabolic steroids, ACE inhibitors, anticholinergics, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, beta-adrenergic blockers, dopamine receptor agonists, among many others. A diverse class of medications can cause depression, anxiety, mania, and psychotic symptoms, and some medications cause multiple iatrogenic effects.
“Iatrogenic psychopathology can occur with a wide array of medications that are used in general medical practice,” said Dr. Nasrallah, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry and professor and chairman of the department of neurology and psychiatry at Saint Louis University. For example, the drug reserpine can cause depression in about 10% of cases, and corticosteroids can cause mood disorders such as depression or mania in about 6% of cases.
In other situations, use of alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, opioids, and other recreational drugs can cause psychiatric symptoms, and withdrawal from alcohol and sedatives can induce psychosis.
The DSM-5 defines a psychiatric disorder as a disorder that is not caused by a general medical condition and is not attributable to recreational or prescription drugs. However, a direct causal connection is sometimes difficult to establish, said Dr. Nasrallah, because psychiatric symptoms that manifest during treatment with prescription medications also could be tied to an underlying medical illness, psychosocial factors, withdrawal from a different prescription medication, or an unrecognized psychopathology. To confirm the drug is causing the disorder, clinicians should also rechallenge the patient.
he said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “First-episode psychiatric disorder is always suspect. Iatrogenesis can occur for the first time in a patient who never had that symptom before, so you suspect it might be iatrogenic.”
Some drugs might induce psychiatric symptoms at higher but not lower doses, he added.
Other risk factors for iatrogenesis include simultaneous use of prescription medications, administration method, narrow therapeutic index, and rapid titration. Patients with slow metabolisms or hepatic insufficiency are at risk for iatrogenesis, as are those who are very young or very old, in stressful settings, or in a postpartum period.
Evaluate when psychiatric symptoms occurred, whether symptoms worsened and when, the dates of medication use, rechallenge and dechallenge dates, and any previous history of psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Nasrallah, who holds the Sydney W. Souers Endowed Chair at the university. If a patient is using more than one medication at a time, record the dates of each drug and their discontinuations.
Determine when the iatrogenesis occurred with psychiatric drugs, Dr. Nasrallah noted. “Iatrogenesis can complicate the course and outcome of the main medical or psychiatric illness being treated. Sometimes psychiatric medication can cause iatrogenic medical conditions; it’s not just a one-way street.”
Dr. Nasrallah reported receiving research grants from Forest, Forum, and Otsuka. In addition, he is a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva, and he serves on the speaker’s bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Janssen, Otsuka, and Sunovion.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Be aware of the potential iatrogenic properties of medications prescribed when patients present with new psychiatric symptoms, Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Drugs that can cause iatrogenic psychiatric symptoms include stimulants, anabolic steroids, ACE inhibitors, anticholinergics, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, beta-adrenergic blockers, dopamine receptor agonists, among many others. A diverse class of medications can cause depression, anxiety, mania, and psychotic symptoms, and some medications cause multiple iatrogenic effects.
“Iatrogenic psychopathology can occur with a wide array of medications that are used in general medical practice,” said Dr. Nasrallah, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry and professor and chairman of the department of neurology and psychiatry at Saint Louis University. For example, the drug reserpine can cause depression in about 10% of cases, and corticosteroids can cause mood disorders such as depression or mania in about 6% of cases.
In other situations, use of alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, opioids, and other recreational drugs can cause psychiatric symptoms, and withdrawal from alcohol and sedatives can induce psychosis.
The DSM-5 defines a psychiatric disorder as a disorder that is not caused by a general medical condition and is not attributable to recreational or prescription drugs. However, a direct causal connection is sometimes difficult to establish, said Dr. Nasrallah, because psychiatric symptoms that manifest during treatment with prescription medications also could be tied to an underlying medical illness, psychosocial factors, withdrawal from a different prescription medication, or an unrecognized psychopathology. To confirm the drug is causing the disorder, clinicians should also rechallenge the patient.
he said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “First-episode psychiatric disorder is always suspect. Iatrogenesis can occur for the first time in a patient who never had that symptom before, so you suspect it might be iatrogenic.”
Some drugs might induce psychiatric symptoms at higher but not lower doses, he added.
Other risk factors for iatrogenesis include simultaneous use of prescription medications, administration method, narrow therapeutic index, and rapid titration. Patients with slow metabolisms or hepatic insufficiency are at risk for iatrogenesis, as are those who are very young or very old, in stressful settings, or in a postpartum period.
Evaluate when psychiatric symptoms occurred, whether symptoms worsened and when, the dates of medication use, rechallenge and dechallenge dates, and any previous history of psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Nasrallah, who holds the Sydney W. Souers Endowed Chair at the university. If a patient is using more than one medication at a time, record the dates of each drug and their discontinuations.
Determine when the iatrogenesis occurred with psychiatric drugs, Dr. Nasrallah noted. “Iatrogenesis can complicate the course and outcome of the main medical or psychiatric illness being treated. Sometimes psychiatric medication can cause iatrogenic medical conditions; it’s not just a one-way street.”
Dr. Nasrallah reported receiving research grants from Forest, Forum, and Otsuka. In addition, he is a consultant for Acadia, Alkermes, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forum, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sunovion, and Teva, and he serves on the speaker’s bureau for Acadia, Alkermes, Janssen, Otsuka, and Sunovion.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
REPORTING FROM FOCUS ON NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2019
Treat insomnia as a full-fledged disorder
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Insomnia is a neuropsychiatric disorder of hyperarousal that should be evaluated as a disorder and treated with any associated comorbid conditions, Karl Doghramji, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
“When I was a resident, I used to say insomnia is never a disorder. It’s always a symptom; you’ve got to find the primary disorder to know what the insomnia is caused by,” said Dr. Doghramji, medical director of the Jefferson Sleep Disorders Center at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia. “We no longer believe that. Throw that out the window.”
According to the new definition under the DSM-5, insomnia is characterized by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity in the presence of adequate opportunity for sleep that causes significant distress or impairment for more than 3 nights per week over a period of 3 months. A survey of almost 7,500 U.S. health plan subscribers conducted a few years ago found that the prevalence of insomnia was estimated at 23.2% (Sleep. 2011 Sep 1;34[9]:1161-71).
Insomnia is also not well identified in clinical practice: In results published from his own group, Dr. Doghramji and colleagues evaluated 97 patients who were administered the Insomnia Severity Index; of those patients, 79.4% met the criteria for insomnia, but there was no mention of insomnia in the discharge notes for those patients (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2018 Oct;206[10]:765-9).
Many cognitive impairments can occur as a result of insomnia, which affects performance at work; decreases enjoyment of social activities; can lead to motor vehicle accidents or falls; and can affect health in the form of diabetes, hypertension, and increased mortality. Insomnia also can predict the risk of future depression and is a risk factor for suicide, Dr. Doghramji said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Adults can have insomnia for many reasons, including genetics, stress, negative conditioning, intrapsychic conflict, and bad habits, as well as medical and psychiatric conditions. While knowledge surrounding insomnia has advanced under a hyperarousal model, “It is really a hyperarousal disturbance which defies psychological understanding,” said Dr. Doghramji, who is also professor of psychiatry, neurology, and medicine at the university.
Evaluating the type of insomnia a patient is experiencing should be the first step in managing the disorder, followed by determining whether the insomnia is contributing to daytime impairment or decreased quality of life for the patient. From there, the insomnia can be treated with behavioral or pharmacotherapy. However, if insomnia is associated with another comorbid condition, the condition should be treated alongside the insomnia.
Sleep is highly comorbid with psychiatric and medical conditions (Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14[2]:167-75). Initial insomnia is more likely to be associated with delayed sleep phase disorder and restless legs syndrome, while middle insomnia is associated with sleep apnea and depression. Patients who wake early and are unable to go back to sleep (terminal insomnia) are likely to have depression, shift work disorder, or advanced sleep phase disorder.
said Dr. Doghramji. The comorbid condition also should be considered when deciding how to treat insomnia. For example, a patient with gastroesophageal reflux disease and insomnia would be more suited to cognitive-behavioral therapy than pharmacologic agents to help with sleep, because being able to wake up during the night from acid building in the esophagus is the body’s defense mechanism for the disease, Dr. Doghramji said.
Dr. Doghramji reported serving as a consultant for Eisai, Merck, and Pfizer. He also receives research funding from and owns stock in Merck.
Global Academy for Medical Education, Current Psychiatry, and this news organization are owned by the same company.
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Insomnia is a neuropsychiatric disorder of hyperarousal that should be evaluated as a disorder and treated with any associated comorbid conditions, Karl Doghramji, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
“When I was a resident, I used to say insomnia is never a disorder. It’s always a symptom; you’ve got to find the primary disorder to know what the insomnia is caused by,” said Dr. Doghramji, medical director of the Jefferson Sleep Disorders Center at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia. “We no longer believe that. Throw that out the window.”
According to the new definition under the DSM-5, insomnia is characterized by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity in the presence of adequate opportunity for sleep that causes significant distress or impairment for more than 3 nights per week over a period of 3 months. A survey of almost 7,500 U.S. health plan subscribers conducted a few years ago found that the prevalence of insomnia was estimated at 23.2% (Sleep. 2011 Sep 1;34[9]:1161-71).
Insomnia is also not well identified in clinical practice: In results published from his own group, Dr. Doghramji and colleagues evaluated 97 patients who were administered the Insomnia Severity Index; of those patients, 79.4% met the criteria for insomnia, but there was no mention of insomnia in the discharge notes for those patients (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2018 Oct;206[10]:765-9).
Many cognitive impairments can occur as a result of insomnia, which affects performance at work; decreases enjoyment of social activities; can lead to motor vehicle accidents or falls; and can affect health in the form of diabetes, hypertension, and increased mortality. Insomnia also can predict the risk of future depression and is a risk factor for suicide, Dr. Doghramji said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Adults can have insomnia for many reasons, including genetics, stress, negative conditioning, intrapsychic conflict, and bad habits, as well as medical and psychiatric conditions. While knowledge surrounding insomnia has advanced under a hyperarousal model, “It is really a hyperarousal disturbance which defies psychological understanding,” said Dr. Doghramji, who is also professor of psychiatry, neurology, and medicine at the university.
Evaluating the type of insomnia a patient is experiencing should be the first step in managing the disorder, followed by determining whether the insomnia is contributing to daytime impairment or decreased quality of life for the patient. From there, the insomnia can be treated with behavioral or pharmacotherapy. However, if insomnia is associated with another comorbid condition, the condition should be treated alongside the insomnia.
Sleep is highly comorbid with psychiatric and medical conditions (Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14[2]:167-75). Initial insomnia is more likely to be associated with delayed sleep phase disorder and restless legs syndrome, while middle insomnia is associated with sleep apnea and depression. Patients who wake early and are unable to go back to sleep (terminal insomnia) are likely to have depression, shift work disorder, or advanced sleep phase disorder.
said Dr. Doghramji. The comorbid condition also should be considered when deciding how to treat insomnia. For example, a patient with gastroesophageal reflux disease and insomnia would be more suited to cognitive-behavioral therapy than pharmacologic agents to help with sleep, because being able to wake up during the night from acid building in the esophagus is the body’s defense mechanism for the disease, Dr. Doghramji said.
Dr. Doghramji reported serving as a consultant for Eisai, Merck, and Pfizer. He also receives research funding from and owns stock in Merck.
Global Academy for Medical Education, Current Psychiatry, and this news organization are owned by the same company.
CRYSTAL CITY, VA. – Insomnia is a neuropsychiatric disorder of hyperarousal that should be evaluated as a disorder and treated with any associated comorbid conditions, Karl Doghramji, MD, said at Focus on Neuropsychiatry presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
“When I was a resident, I used to say insomnia is never a disorder. It’s always a symptom; you’ve got to find the primary disorder to know what the insomnia is caused by,” said Dr. Doghramji, medical director of the Jefferson Sleep Disorders Center at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia. “We no longer believe that. Throw that out the window.”
According to the new definition under the DSM-5, insomnia is characterized by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity in the presence of adequate opportunity for sleep that causes significant distress or impairment for more than 3 nights per week over a period of 3 months. A survey of almost 7,500 U.S. health plan subscribers conducted a few years ago found that the prevalence of insomnia was estimated at 23.2% (Sleep. 2011 Sep 1;34[9]:1161-71).
Insomnia is also not well identified in clinical practice: In results published from his own group, Dr. Doghramji and colleagues evaluated 97 patients who were administered the Insomnia Severity Index; of those patients, 79.4% met the criteria for insomnia, but there was no mention of insomnia in the discharge notes for those patients (J Nerv Ment Dis. 2018 Oct;206[10]:765-9).
Many cognitive impairments can occur as a result of insomnia, which affects performance at work; decreases enjoyment of social activities; can lead to motor vehicle accidents or falls; and can affect health in the form of diabetes, hypertension, and increased mortality. Insomnia also can predict the risk of future depression and is a risk factor for suicide, Dr. Doghramji said at the meeting presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Adults can have insomnia for many reasons, including genetics, stress, negative conditioning, intrapsychic conflict, and bad habits, as well as medical and psychiatric conditions. While knowledge surrounding insomnia has advanced under a hyperarousal model, “It is really a hyperarousal disturbance which defies psychological understanding,” said Dr. Doghramji, who is also professor of psychiatry, neurology, and medicine at the university.
Evaluating the type of insomnia a patient is experiencing should be the first step in managing the disorder, followed by determining whether the insomnia is contributing to daytime impairment or decreased quality of life for the patient. From there, the insomnia can be treated with behavioral or pharmacotherapy. However, if insomnia is associated with another comorbid condition, the condition should be treated alongside the insomnia.
Sleep is highly comorbid with psychiatric and medical conditions (Sleep Med Clin. 2019 Jun;14[2]:167-75). Initial insomnia is more likely to be associated with delayed sleep phase disorder and restless legs syndrome, while middle insomnia is associated with sleep apnea and depression. Patients who wake early and are unable to go back to sleep (terminal insomnia) are likely to have depression, shift work disorder, or advanced sleep phase disorder.
said Dr. Doghramji. The comorbid condition also should be considered when deciding how to treat insomnia. For example, a patient with gastroesophageal reflux disease and insomnia would be more suited to cognitive-behavioral therapy than pharmacologic agents to help with sleep, because being able to wake up during the night from acid building in the esophagus is the body’s defense mechanism for the disease, Dr. Doghramji said.
Dr. Doghramji reported serving as a consultant for Eisai, Merck, and Pfizer. He also receives research funding from and owns stock in Merck.
Global Academy for Medical Education, Current Psychiatry, and this news organization are owned by the same company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM FOCUS ON NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2019
Improving self-confidence
The best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
The best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
The best way to ensure that I’ll run late in clinic is to start late. I avoid such delayed starts as scabies, yet, sometimes it’s unavoidable. I walked into my 1:30 appointment at 1:35. “Can I ask you a question?” my bony, patient with the long gray beard asked. “Sure.” I replied. “Is your time important to you?” he snapped.
Oh, boy. Here we go.
“I’m sorry I’m running late and kept you waiting,” I offered, “but I had a sick patient this morning.” When he retorted that his time was important, too, I interrupted him.
“Please sit on the exam table and tell me how I can help you so we don’t waste any more of your time.” He went on to complain that the treatments for his facial seborrheic dermatitis did not resolve the problem. When he stops treatment, it flares. I explained that this was a chronic condition and that he could manage it with my help. He resisted, but with each parry, his aggressiveness weakened. We reviewed behavior, product, and medication options for him. By the end of the visit, he was (mostly) pleased and left with a plan and prescription to help.
Early in my career, this appointment might have been disastrous: It would have ruined my afternoon and possibly led to a formal patient complaint. His antagonistic comments and boorish behavior would have unsettled me. But it didn’t now.
I had the confidence to know his diagnosis and how to help him, despite his dissatisfaction. Those with strong self-confidence not only have better patient satisfaction and higher quality but also are more efficient and have high level of satisfaction with their career. When your confidence is low, medical decision making and managing patient expectations become difficult. This is particularly true when a patient comes “informed.” Often their knowledge is helpful but, as we know, sometimes it’s bogus, even detrimental. Although we ought to have come a long way from the brash doctor-knows-best days of our past, we also ought not capitulate to patients. Sometimes, you have to be the doctor. Balancing confidence with compassion is tricky yet essential to success.
When I meet with our young doctors, I try to provide feedback not only on their medical acumen but also on their confidence to deploy that expertise. Like a skill, self-confidence can be improved. The best way is to recognize difficult conversations and do not avoid them. When you feel your face flush and heart race, take a good belly breath and step into it. You don’t have to confront or argue with your patient, you do have to assert and negotiate. Helping a difficult patient can feel like you’ve done something wrong, but chances are, you haven’t. Reframe the situation, think of it as you doing the hard work to help them. Being confident is as important as getting the diagnosis right. Even when you don’t know the diagnosis, you can be most helpful when you are direct and say so. “I’m not sure what you have, but here is how I’m going to help you.”
To improve self-confidence you’ll have to practice. When you have a difficult visit that ultimately ended well, make a note of it. Reflect on it. The next time you have a challenging patient, remember your previous success and how you felt. Then breathe and do it again. After all, you are the doctor.
Dr. Benabio is director of health care transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Illinois law expands abortion rights for women
A new Illinois law makes abortion a fundamental right and requires insurers to pay for the procedure as they would any other medical procedure.
The Illinois Reproductive Health Act repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, two restrictive laws that have been largely blocked from enforcement for years by the courts. The replacement law removes criminal penalties for physicians who perform abortions, eliminates waiting periods before women can receive an abortion, and lifts a requirement that married women receive spousal consent before obtaining the procedure. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed the law on June 12.
“In a time when too many states across the nation are taking a step backward, Illinois is taking a giant step forward for women’s health,” Gov. Pritzker said in a statement. “Illinois is demonstrating what it means to affirm the rights of individuals to make the most personal and fundamental decisions of their lives, no matter your income level, race, ethnicity, or religion. When it comes to contraception, abortion, and reproductive care, this law puts the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of women and their doctors.”
As part of the law, private health insurance plans in Illinois are required to cover abortion. Previously, the plans were mandated to cover only contraception, infertility treatments, and maternity care. The law also states that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under Illinois law.
The law comes as states across the country are enacting more restrictive abortion measures. Recent laws in six states – Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio – bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected. A measure in Alabama meanwhile, prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Analysts say those laws will likely lead to a review of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court later this year.
Also in June, the Department Health & Human Services said scientists are no longer allowed to use fetal tissue from abortions in research. In a statement, the agency said the decision comes amid a comprehensive review of all HHS research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations governing such research. The ban on fetal tissue research led to the cancellation of an existing HIV research contract between the federal government and the University of California, San Francisco, according to HHS.
“Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” according to an HHS statement. “The audit and review helped inform the policy process that led to the administration’s decision to let the contract with UCSF expire and to discontinue intramural research – research conducted within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – involving the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortion. Intramural research that requires new acquisition of fetal tissue from elective abortions will not be conducted.”
A new Illinois law makes abortion a fundamental right and requires insurers to pay for the procedure as they would any other medical procedure.
The Illinois Reproductive Health Act repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, two restrictive laws that have been largely blocked from enforcement for years by the courts. The replacement law removes criminal penalties for physicians who perform abortions, eliminates waiting periods before women can receive an abortion, and lifts a requirement that married women receive spousal consent before obtaining the procedure. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed the law on June 12.
“In a time when too many states across the nation are taking a step backward, Illinois is taking a giant step forward for women’s health,” Gov. Pritzker said in a statement. “Illinois is demonstrating what it means to affirm the rights of individuals to make the most personal and fundamental decisions of their lives, no matter your income level, race, ethnicity, or religion. When it comes to contraception, abortion, and reproductive care, this law puts the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of women and their doctors.”
As part of the law, private health insurance plans in Illinois are required to cover abortion. Previously, the plans were mandated to cover only contraception, infertility treatments, and maternity care. The law also states that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under Illinois law.
The law comes as states across the country are enacting more restrictive abortion measures. Recent laws in six states – Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio – bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected. A measure in Alabama meanwhile, prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Analysts say those laws will likely lead to a review of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court later this year.
Also in June, the Department Health & Human Services said scientists are no longer allowed to use fetal tissue from abortions in research. In a statement, the agency said the decision comes amid a comprehensive review of all HHS research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations governing such research. The ban on fetal tissue research led to the cancellation of an existing HIV research contract between the federal government and the University of California, San Francisco, according to HHS.
“Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” according to an HHS statement. “The audit and review helped inform the policy process that led to the administration’s decision to let the contract with UCSF expire and to discontinue intramural research – research conducted within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – involving the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortion. Intramural research that requires new acquisition of fetal tissue from elective abortions will not be conducted.”
A new Illinois law makes abortion a fundamental right and requires insurers to pay for the procedure as they would any other medical procedure.
The Illinois Reproductive Health Act repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, two restrictive laws that have been largely blocked from enforcement for years by the courts. The replacement law removes criminal penalties for physicians who perform abortions, eliminates waiting periods before women can receive an abortion, and lifts a requirement that married women receive spousal consent before obtaining the procedure. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed the law on June 12.
“In a time when too many states across the nation are taking a step backward, Illinois is taking a giant step forward for women’s health,” Gov. Pritzker said in a statement. “Illinois is demonstrating what it means to affirm the rights of individuals to make the most personal and fundamental decisions of their lives, no matter your income level, race, ethnicity, or religion. When it comes to contraception, abortion, and reproductive care, this law puts the decision making where it belongs: in the hands of women and their doctors.”
As part of the law, private health insurance plans in Illinois are required to cover abortion. Previously, the plans were mandated to cover only contraception, infertility treatments, and maternity care. The law also states that a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights under Illinois law.
The law comes as states across the country are enacting more restrictive abortion measures. Recent laws in six states – Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio – bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected. A measure in Alabama meanwhile, prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Analysts say those laws will likely lead to a review of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court later this year.
Also in June, the Department Health & Human Services said scientists are no longer allowed to use fetal tissue from abortions in research. In a statement, the agency said the decision comes amid a comprehensive review of all HHS research involving human fetal tissue from elective abortions to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations governing such research. The ban on fetal tissue research led to the cancellation of an existing HIV research contract between the federal government and the University of California, San Francisco, according to HHS.
“Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” according to an HHS statement. “The audit and review helped inform the policy process that led to the administration’s decision to let the contract with UCSF expire and to discontinue intramural research – research conducted within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – involving the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortion. Intramural research that requires new acquisition of fetal tissue from elective abortions will not be conducted.”
A/T/N system predicts cognitive decline
Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.
Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.
The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.
A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.
The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.
Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).
The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.
In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.
“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”
Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.
The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.
“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.
A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).
A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.
“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.
While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”
This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”
SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.
The findings reported by Jack et al. most immediately affect research cohorts, but they raise an interesting suggestion: Only in the presence of concomitant tau, neuropathology, or both does amyloidosis appear related to an increased rate of cognitive decline when compared with non-Alzheimer’s groups.
Prevention studies lasting only a few years may be more likely to find treatment effects on disease progression in actively treated groups of those patients.
An interesting finding in the study is that A+/T–/N+ subjects showed faster rates of cognitive decline than did the A–/T–/N+ groups even though, in both cases, neurodegeneration is thought to be driven by non-Alzheimer’s pathology. What is causing disease in the A–/T–/N+ group will be unclear until the framework is enriched with other important contributors to age-related cognitive decline.
Currently, A/T/N classification – based on neuroimaging – is costly and impractical on a large scale, and so far lacks data on the added value of each specific A/T/N measure and generalizability to more diverse patient populations.
Despite these concerns, the study by Jack et al. represents an important contribution in conceptualizing Alzheimer’s disease and testing the research framework in a relatively large sample of participants.
David Wolk, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania Memory Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues’ comments here are paraphrased from an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2019;321[23]:2289-91). Dr. Wolk reported receiving grants and personal fees from Avid/Eli Lilly and Merck; personal fees from Janssen, GE Healthcare, and Neuronix; and grants from Biogen and Functional Neuromodulation.
The findings reported by Jack et al. most immediately affect research cohorts, but they raise an interesting suggestion: Only in the presence of concomitant tau, neuropathology, or both does amyloidosis appear related to an increased rate of cognitive decline when compared with non-Alzheimer’s groups.
Prevention studies lasting only a few years may be more likely to find treatment effects on disease progression in actively treated groups of those patients.
An interesting finding in the study is that A+/T–/N+ subjects showed faster rates of cognitive decline than did the A–/T–/N+ groups even though, in both cases, neurodegeneration is thought to be driven by non-Alzheimer’s pathology. What is causing disease in the A–/T–/N+ group will be unclear until the framework is enriched with other important contributors to age-related cognitive decline.
Currently, A/T/N classification – based on neuroimaging – is costly and impractical on a large scale, and so far lacks data on the added value of each specific A/T/N measure and generalizability to more diverse patient populations.
Despite these concerns, the study by Jack et al. represents an important contribution in conceptualizing Alzheimer’s disease and testing the research framework in a relatively large sample of participants.
David Wolk, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania Memory Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues’ comments here are paraphrased from an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2019;321[23]:2289-91). Dr. Wolk reported receiving grants and personal fees from Avid/Eli Lilly and Merck; personal fees from Janssen, GE Healthcare, and Neuronix; and grants from Biogen and Functional Neuromodulation.
The findings reported by Jack et al. most immediately affect research cohorts, but they raise an interesting suggestion: Only in the presence of concomitant tau, neuropathology, or both does amyloidosis appear related to an increased rate of cognitive decline when compared with non-Alzheimer’s groups.
Prevention studies lasting only a few years may be more likely to find treatment effects on disease progression in actively treated groups of those patients.
An interesting finding in the study is that A+/T–/N+ subjects showed faster rates of cognitive decline than did the A–/T–/N+ groups even though, in both cases, neurodegeneration is thought to be driven by non-Alzheimer’s pathology. What is causing disease in the A–/T–/N+ group will be unclear until the framework is enriched with other important contributors to age-related cognitive decline.
Currently, A/T/N classification – based on neuroimaging – is costly and impractical on a large scale, and so far lacks data on the added value of each specific A/T/N measure and generalizability to more diverse patient populations.
Despite these concerns, the study by Jack et al. represents an important contribution in conceptualizing Alzheimer’s disease and testing the research framework in a relatively large sample of participants.
David Wolk, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania Memory Center, Philadelphia, and colleagues’ comments here are paraphrased from an accompanying editorial (JAMA. 2019;321[23]:2289-91). Dr. Wolk reported receiving grants and personal fees from Avid/Eli Lilly and Merck; personal fees from Janssen, GE Healthcare, and Neuronix; and grants from Biogen and Functional Neuromodulation.
Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.
Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.
The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.
A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.
The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.
Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).
The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.
In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.
“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”
Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.
The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.
“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.
A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).
A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.
“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.
While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”
This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”
SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.
Adding the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) model of dementia to a clinical model may give an incremental but still significantly increased ability to predict cognitive decline over nearly 5 years, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study of patients without dementia at baseline.
Although the A/T/N model is still intended only for research purposes, the study came to another important conclusion: About 50% of the memory change associated with normal aging was, in fact, caused by changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and colleagues wrote in JAMA.
The three groups with the fastest rates of memory decline all had abnormal amyloid and either abnormal tau and/or imaging signs of neurodegeneration. “This illustrated a dominant association of memory decline with amyloidosis but only when present in combination with tauopathy, neurodegeneration, or both,” Dr. Jack of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors wrote.
A/T/N, also known as the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, is based on objective amyloid and tau biomarkers and imaging markers of neurodegeneration and is intended to more accurately differentiate Alzheimer’s from other dementias and, potentially, to stage the disease and predict and track decline. It generates eight clinical profiles that can identify Alzheimer’s, rule it out, or include it as a possible diagnosis.
The study comprised 480 elderly individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. Median age of the participants ranged from 67 years in one of the eight clinical profiles (A–/T–/N–) to 83 years in another (A+/T+/N+). Most (92%) were cognitively normal; the remainder had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). They were followed for a median of 4.8 years.
Both amyloid and tau were measured with PET imaging; neuropathology was represented by MRI scans of cortical thickness. Most (n = 140) were negative for all biomarkers (A–/T–/N–). The group positive for all markers (A+/T+/N+) had the largest proportion of MCI subjects (30%). The apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) genotype was more common among the A+ groups than it was among the A– groups (40% vs. 21%).
The individual cognitive decline trajectories varied considerably by age and within each classification group. Only 7% of the A–/T–/N– group were 80 years or older, and only 2% of the A+/N+/T+ group were younger than 70 years.
In a clinical model, age and APOE4 status were significantly associated with faster rates of memory decline. Sex, education, and a cardiovascular/metabolic model were not, however.
“The estimated rate of memory decline in a 75-year-old individual who was an APOE4 noncarrier was –0.04 z-score units per year,” the authors wrote. “An 85-year-old individual who was also an APOE4 noncarrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year, while a 75-year-old E4 carrier could be expected to have a decline of –0.08 units per year.”
Every 10 years of additional age was associated with a significant median worsening of 0.4 on z score for memory. A 4-year difference in education was associated with a 0.6-unit higher memory score, while APOE4 carriers had a 0.3-unit lower memory score.
The addition of the A/T/N model significantly improved the prediction of cognitive decline and memory score, although the rates of decline were still considerably variable. All of the A+ groups had the fastest decline rates.
“To place the predictive utility of biomarkers in clinical context, the decline in rates of memory for A+/T+/N–, A+/T–/N+, A+/T+/N+ [abnormal amyloid plus tau or neurodegeneration] were of similar magnitude to a 20-year increase in age and were twice that associated with APOE4 carriership,” they wrote.
A total of 88 participants had a second imaging visit at a median of 15 months. Most (n = 72) had no change in the A/T/N classification. A and T classifications were more stable (98% and 97%, respectively) than was N classification (84%).
A secondary analysis compared this model with generally accepted clinical and biomarker characteristics. Prior research has shown that prevalence of abnormal A/T/N biomarker groups increased with age in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean annual memory z-score in this cohort at 60 years was 0.02, which dropped to 0.11 by age 90.
“Forty-six percent of this increase in decline rate [–0.06] was partitioned to the increasing prevalence of abnormal A/T/N profiles, while the remaining decline [–0.07] was partitioned to age,” the investigators reported.
While A+ subjects were most likely to decline, the A+/T–/N+ group presents a conundrum, the team wrote. “A possible explanation is that these individuals have early Alzheimer’s disease [denoted by A+T–] plus neurodegeneration due to comorbid non–Alzheimer’s disease neuropathic changes.”
This is an important point because the cognitive decline of Alzheimer’s is thought to be largely associated with tauopathy, not amyloidosis. “One possible explanation is an effect of subthreshold tau in A+/T–/N+ individuals, but this is speculative. Clearer understanding of the neuropathologic bases for the A+/T–/N+ group, as well as other A/T/N groups, awaits future biomarker-autopsy correlation studies.”
SOURCE: Jack CR et al. JAMA 2019;321:2316-25.
FROM JAMA
CMS seeks answers on prior authorization, other hassles to eliminate
Got an idea on how to reduce administrative burden to help reduce the cost of delivering health care? The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wants to hear from you.
In a request for information published June 6, the agency seeks parties across the health care spectrum “to recommend further changes to rules, policies, and procedures that would shift more of clinicians’ time and our health care system’s resources from needless paperwork to high-quality care that improves patient health,” CMS officials said in a statement.
The request for information, part of the agency’s Patients Over Paperwork initiative, seeks suggestions on how to reduce hassles associated with reporting and documentation, coding, prior authorization, rural issues, dual eligible patients, enrollment/eligibility determination and the agency’s own process for issuing regulations and policies.
“Patients over Paperwork has made great inroads in clearing away needlessly complex, outdated, or duplicative requirements that drain clinicians’ time but contribute little to quality of care or patient health,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Our goal is to ensure that doctors are spending more time with their patients and less time in administrative tasks.”
The request for information is scheduled to published in the Federal Register on June 11. Comments are due to the agency on Aug. 12. Comments can be made at www.regulations.gov and should refer to file code CMS-6082-NC.
AGA will submit comments to CMS on this issue given the huge burden that prior authorization plays in practices and the time that it takes away from providing care to patients. In the meantime, ask your legislator to support Improving Seniors Access to Timely Care Act of 2019, which was recently introduced in Congress to streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program to relieve the administrative burdens this poses for physicians and help patients receive quicker access to the medical care they need. Learn more at http://ow.ly/tJfX30oW5l7.
SOURCE: Federal Register, CMS-6082-NC, https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-12215.
Got an idea on how to reduce administrative burden to help reduce the cost of delivering health care? The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wants to hear from you.
In a request for information published June 6, the agency seeks parties across the health care spectrum “to recommend further changes to rules, policies, and procedures that would shift more of clinicians’ time and our health care system’s resources from needless paperwork to high-quality care that improves patient health,” CMS officials said in a statement.
The request for information, part of the agency’s Patients Over Paperwork initiative, seeks suggestions on how to reduce hassles associated with reporting and documentation, coding, prior authorization, rural issues, dual eligible patients, enrollment/eligibility determination and the agency’s own process for issuing regulations and policies.
“Patients over Paperwork has made great inroads in clearing away needlessly complex, outdated, or duplicative requirements that drain clinicians’ time but contribute little to quality of care or patient health,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Our goal is to ensure that doctors are spending more time with their patients and less time in administrative tasks.”
The request for information is scheduled to published in the Federal Register on June 11. Comments are due to the agency on Aug. 12. Comments can be made at www.regulations.gov and should refer to file code CMS-6082-NC.
AGA will submit comments to CMS on this issue given the huge burden that prior authorization plays in practices and the time that it takes away from providing care to patients. In the meantime, ask your legislator to support Improving Seniors Access to Timely Care Act of 2019, which was recently introduced in Congress to streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program to relieve the administrative burdens this poses for physicians and help patients receive quicker access to the medical care they need. Learn more at http://ow.ly/tJfX30oW5l7.
SOURCE: Federal Register, CMS-6082-NC, https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-12215.
Got an idea on how to reduce administrative burden to help reduce the cost of delivering health care? The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services wants to hear from you.
In a request for information published June 6, the agency seeks parties across the health care spectrum “to recommend further changes to rules, policies, and procedures that would shift more of clinicians’ time and our health care system’s resources from needless paperwork to high-quality care that improves patient health,” CMS officials said in a statement.
The request for information, part of the agency’s Patients Over Paperwork initiative, seeks suggestions on how to reduce hassles associated with reporting and documentation, coding, prior authorization, rural issues, dual eligible patients, enrollment/eligibility determination and the agency’s own process for issuing regulations and policies.
“Patients over Paperwork has made great inroads in clearing away needlessly complex, outdated, or duplicative requirements that drain clinicians’ time but contribute little to quality of care or patient health,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Our goal is to ensure that doctors are spending more time with their patients and less time in administrative tasks.”
The request for information is scheduled to published in the Federal Register on June 11. Comments are due to the agency on Aug. 12. Comments can be made at www.regulations.gov and should refer to file code CMS-6082-NC.
AGA will submit comments to CMS on this issue given the huge burden that prior authorization plays in practices and the time that it takes away from providing care to patients. In the meantime, ask your legislator to support Improving Seniors Access to Timely Care Act of 2019, which was recently introduced in Congress to streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program to relieve the administrative burdens this poses for physicians and help patients receive quicker access to the medical care they need. Learn more at http://ow.ly/tJfX30oW5l7.
SOURCE: Federal Register, CMS-6082-NC, https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-12215.
Key clinical point: CMS is looking to expand Patients Over Paperwork initiative.
Major finding: The agency issued a request for information to solicit ideas to reduce administrative burdens.
Study details: Ideas are sought in the following areas: reporting and documentation, coding, prior authorization, rural issues, dual eligible patients, enrollment/eligibility determination and the agency’s own process for issuing regulations and policies. The request for information is scheduled to published in the Federal Register on June 11. Comments are due to the agency on Aug. 12. Comments can be made at www.regulations.gov and should refer to file code CMS-6082-NC.Disclosures: None .
Source: Federal Register, CMS-6082-NC, https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-12215.
Malnutrition leads to worse outcomes in frail elderly patients treated for PAD
Frailty increasingly has been seen as a factor in procedural outcomes, including vascular surgery. Nutrition factors among older adults have also become an issue of concern, and older adults undergoing interventions for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may be at risk for malnutrition. At the Vascular Annual Meeting, Laura Drudi, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, reported on a study that she and her colleagues performed to determine the association between preprocedural nutritional status and all-cause mortality in patients being treated for PAD.
Dr. Drudi detailed their post hoc analysis of the FRAILED (Frailty Assessment in Lower Extremity arterial Disease) prospective cohort, which comprised two centers recruiting patients during July 1, 2015–Oct.1, 2016. Individuals who underwent vascular interventions for Rutherford class 3 or higher PAD were enrolled. Trained observers used the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)–Short Form to assess the patients before their procedures. Scores less than or equal to 7 on a 14-point scale were considered malnourished, with scores of 8-11 indicated that patients were at risk for malnutrition.
The modified Essential Frailty Toolset (mEFT) was simultaneously used to measure frailty, with scores of 3 or less on a 5-point scale considered frail. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality at 12 months after the procedure. Results were available for a cohort of 148 patients (39.2% women) with a mean age of 70 years, and a mean body mass index of 26.7 kg/m2. Among these patients, 59 (40%) had claudication and 89 (60%) had chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A total of 98 (66%) patients underwent endovascular revascularization and 50 (34%) underwent open or hybrid revascularization.
Overall, 3% of subjects were classified as malnourished and 33% were at risk for malnutrition. There were 9 (6%) deaths at 12 months. Mini Nutritional Assessment–Short Form scores were modestly but significantly correlated with the mEFT scores (Pearson’s R = –0.48; P less than .001).
”We found that patients with malnourishment or at risk of malnourishment had a 2.5-fold higher crude 1-year mortality, compared with those with normal nutritional status,” said Dr. Drudi.
In the 41% of patients deemed frail, malnutrition was associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.08 per point decrease in MNA scores); whereas in the nonfrail patients, MNA scores had little or no effect on mortality (adjusted OR, 1.05).
“Preprocedural nutritional status is associated with mortality in frail older adults undergoing interventions for PAD. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether pre- and postprocedural nutritional interventions can improve clinical outcomes in these vulnerable individuals,” Dr. Drudi concluded.
Frailty increasingly has been seen as a factor in procedural outcomes, including vascular surgery. Nutrition factors among older adults have also become an issue of concern, and older adults undergoing interventions for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may be at risk for malnutrition. At the Vascular Annual Meeting, Laura Drudi, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, reported on a study that she and her colleagues performed to determine the association between preprocedural nutritional status and all-cause mortality in patients being treated for PAD.
Dr. Drudi detailed their post hoc analysis of the FRAILED (Frailty Assessment in Lower Extremity arterial Disease) prospective cohort, which comprised two centers recruiting patients during July 1, 2015–Oct.1, 2016. Individuals who underwent vascular interventions for Rutherford class 3 or higher PAD were enrolled. Trained observers used the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)–Short Form to assess the patients before their procedures. Scores less than or equal to 7 on a 14-point scale were considered malnourished, with scores of 8-11 indicated that patients were at risk for malnutrition.
The modified Essential Frailty Toolset (mEFT) was simultaneously used to measure frailty, with scores of 3 or less on a 5-point scale considered frail. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality at 12 months after the procedure. Results were available for a cohort of 148 patients (39.2% women) with a mean age of 70 years, and a mean body mass index of 26.7 kg/m2. Among these patients, 59 (40%) had claudication and 89 (60%) had chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A total of 98 (66%) patients underwent endovascular revascularization and 50 (34%) underwent open or hybrid revascularization.
Overall, 3% of subjects were classified as malnourished and 33% were at risk for malnutrition. There were 9 (6%) deaths at 12 months. Mini Nutritional Assessment–Short Form scores were modestly but significantly correlated with the mEFT scores (Pearson’s R = –0.48; P less than .001).
”We found that patients with malnourishment or at risk of malnourishment had a 2.5-fold higher crude 1-year mortality, compared with those with normal nutritional status,” said Dr. Drudi.
In the 41% of patients deemed frail, malnutrition was associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.08 per point decrease in MNA scores); whereas in the nonfrail patients, MNA scores had little or no effect on mortality (adjusted OR, 1.05).
“Preprocedural nutritional status is associated with mortality in frail older adults undergoing interventions for PAD. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether pre- and postprocedural nutritional interventions can improve clinical outcomes in these vulnerable individuals,” Dr. Drudi concluded.
Frailty increasingly has been seen as a factor in procedural outcomes, including vascular surgery. Nutrition factors among older adults have also become an issue of concern, and older adults undergoing interventions for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may be at risk for malnutrition. At the Vascular Annual Meeting, Laura Drudi, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, reported on a study that she and her colleagues performed to determine the association between preprocedural nutritional status and all-cause mortality in patients being treated for PAD.
Dr. Drudi detailed their post hoc analysis of the FRAILED (Frailty Assessment in Lower Extremity arterial Disease) prospective cohort, which comprised two centers recruiting patients during July 1, 2015–Oct.1, 2016. Individuals who underwent vascular interventions for Rutherford class 3 or higher PAD were enrolled. Trained observers used the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)–Short Form to assess the patients before their procedures. Scores less than or equal to 7 on a 14-point scale were considered malnourished, with scores of 8-11 indicated that patients were at risk for malnutrition.
The modified Essential Frailty Toolset (mEFT) was simultaneously used to measure frailty, with scores of 3 or less on a 5-point scale considered frail. The primary endpoint of the study was all-cause mortality at 12 months after the procedure. Results were available for a cohort of 148 patients (39.2% women) with a mean age of 70 years, and a mean body mass index of 26.7 kg/m2. Among these patients, 59 (40%) had claudication and 89 (60%) had chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A total of 98 (66%) patients underwent endovascular revascularization and 50 (34%) underwent open or hybrid revascularization.
Overall, 3% of subjects were classified as malnourished and 33% were at risk for malnutrition. There were 9 (6%) deaths at 12 months. Mini Nutritional Assessment–Short Form scores were modestly but significantly correlated with the mEFT scores (Pearson’s R = –0.48; P less than .001).
”We found that patients with malnourishment or at risk of malnourishment had a 2.5-fold higher crude 1-year mortality, compared with those with normal nutritional status,” said Dr. Drudi.
In the 41% of patients deemed frail, malnutrition was associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.08 per point decrease in MNA scores); whereas in the nonfrail patients, MNA scores had little or no effect on mortality (adjusted OR, 1.05).
“Preprocedural nutritional status is associated with mortality in frail older adults undergoing interventions for PAD. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether pre- and postprocedural nutritional interventions can improve clinical outcomes in these vulnerable individuals,” Dr. Drudi concluded.