User login
Sleepless democracy, space herpes, and the F-bomb diet
Sleep: the key to democracy?
You might need to lie down for this one. Insufficient sleep could be affecting the very institutions and behaviors that keep society from crumbling.
Lack of sleep is proven to affect “private” behaviors, like working, but a new study has shown that exhaustion also has consequences on a national scale. Sleeping less negatively affects the “social behaviors that hold society and democracy together,” according to the study’s authors.
Willingness to vote, donate to charities, and sign petitions decreased in sleep-deprived participants. Although that last one is iffy – is anyone really willing to sign a petition, regardless of sleep intake? One thing to glean from this study is, if you’re holding a clipboard, let the most tired-looking people keep walking.
Perhaps we should start a petition to make the day before Election Day a national napping holiday.
I hear you knocking, but you can’t come in
LOTME takes you to the ends of the earth for this edition of Bacteria vs. the World. Let’s go to our correspondent, Danielle Kang, on the International Space Station. 
Hi, this is Briny Baird in Berlin, Germany. The space station’s extreme environment weakens astronauts’ immune systems, but it has the opposite effect on bacteria, as Elisabeth Grohmann, PhD, of Beuth University of Applied Sciences explains.
“The bacteria [astronauts] carry become hardier – developing thick protective coatings and resistance to antibiotics – and more vigorous, multiplying and metabolizing faster.”
This is, as scientists put it, bad. To prevent an on-board bacterial bacchanal, Dr. Grohmann and her associates covered a vital piece of ISS equipment, the toilet door, with a new coating containing “silver and ruthenium, conditioned by a vitamin derivative.” After 19 months in space, the coated section of the door had 80% fewer bacteria on it than an uncoated control surface.
With long-term missions to Mars being considered, it should be safer for astronauts and their toilet doors to … go where no one has gone before. Back to the studio.
The F-bomb diet
You might think vulgarities and Homo sapiens have been an inseparable pair since the first human bashed her thumb while chipping stones into spearheads to add meat to her diet. You’d probably be right – except for blue-tinged language built on the consonant foundations of the letters F and V.
New linguistics research finds that those $#%*! letters, like truckers and Marine gunnery sergeants, are relatively modern developments. As humans moved away from finger-harming hunting and gathering and toward finger-harming farming, they developed a taste for softer foods. And their speech picked up “labiodentals” such as F and V – which are sounds made when we touch our lower lips to our upper teeth. Half the world’s languages are now riddled with soft-food profanities, er, labiodentals.
Next on the linguists’ research list: Does the paleo diet lead to the dropping of fewer F-bombs?
Herpes! In space!
Viruses can never let bacteria have all the fun. Where there’s an immune system weakened by radiation and microgravity, rest assured, our old friend the herpes virus will be waiting for us.
Yes, it looks like frequent bathroom trips won’t be the only issue future Dr. McCoys will be treating. According to a study published in Frontiers in Microbiology, four of the eight herpes viruses were discovered in the saliva and urine of more than half of the hundred or so astronauts who had samples analyzed during spaceflight.
The good news is that only six astronauts actually had symptoms emerge, all of which were minor. The bad news is that the strength, frequency, and duration of viral shedding through urine and saliva increased as more time was spent in space. Also, only one of the herpes varieties found has a vaccine. The rest will just have to be treated as symptoms emerge.
We’ll just hope Captain Kirk doesn’t come down with a case of mononucleosis while fighting the Klingons. Damn it, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!
Sleep: the key to democracy?
You might need to lie down for this one. Insufficient sleep could be affecting the very institutions and behaviors that keep society from crumbling.
Lack of sleep is proven to affect “private” behaviors, like working, but a new study has shown that exhaustion also has consequences on a national scale. Sleeping less negatively affects the “social behaviors that hold society and democracy together,” according to the study’s authors.
Willingness to vote, donate to charities, and sign petitions decreased in sleep-deprived participants. Although that last one is iffy – is anyone really willing to sign a petition, regardless of sleep intake? One thing to glean from this study is, if you’re holding a clipboard, let the most tired-looking people keep walking.
Perhaps we should start a petition to make the day before Election Day a national napping holiday.
I hear you knocking, but you can’t come in
LOTME takes you to the ends of the earth for this edition of Bacteria vs. the World. Let’s go to our correspondent, Danielle Kang, on the International Space Station.
Hi, this is Briny Baird in Berlin, Germany. The space station’s extreme environment weakens astronauts’ immune systems, but it has the opposite effect on bacteria, as Elisabeth Grohmann, PhD, of Beuth University of Applied Sciences explains.
“The bacteria [astronauts] carry become hardier – developing thick protective coatings and resistance to antibiotics – and more vigorous, multiplying and metabolizing faster.”
This is, as scientists put it, bad. To prevent an on-board bacterial bacchanal, Dr. Grohmann and her associates covered a vital piece of ISS equipment, the toilet door, with a new coating containing “silver and ruthenium, conditioned by a vitamin derivative.” After 19 months in space, the coated section of the door had 80% fewer bacteria on it than an uncoated control surface.
With long-term missions to Mars being considered, it should be safer for astronauts and their toilet doors to … go where no one has gone before. Back to the studio.
The F-bomb diet
You might think vulgarities and Homo sapiens have been an inseparable pair since the first human bashed her thumb while chipping stones into spearheads to add meat to her diet. You’d probably be right – except for blue-tinged language built on the consonant foundations of the letters F and V.
New linguistics research finds that those $#%*! letters, like truckers and Marine gunnery sergeants, are relatively modern developments. As humans moved away from finger-harming hunting and gathering and toward finger-harming farming, they developed a taste for softer foods. And their speech picked up “labiodentals” such as F and V – which are sounds made when we touch our lower lips to our upper teeth. Half the world’s languages are now riddled with soft-food profanities, er, labiodentals.
Next on the linguists’ research list: Does the paleo diet lead to the dropping of fewer F-bombs?
Herpes! In space!
Viruses can never let bacteria have all the fun. Where there’s an immune system weakened by radiation and microgravity, rest assured, our old friend the herpes virus will be waiting for us.
Yes, it looks like frequent bathroom trips won’t be the only issue future Dr. McCoys will be treating. According to a study published in Frontiers in Microbiology, four of the eight herpes viruses were discovered in the saliva and urine of more than half of the hundred or so astronauts who had samples analyzed during spaceflight.
The good news is that only six astronauts actually had symptoms emerge, all of which were minor. The bad news is that the strength, frequency, and duration of viral shedding through urine and saliva increased as more time was spent in space. Also, only one of the herpes varieties found has a vaccine. The rest will just have to be treated as symptoms emerge.
We’ll just hope Captain Kirk doesn’t come down with a case of mononucleosis while fighting the Klingons. Damn it, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!
Sleep: the key to democracy?
You might need to lie down for this one. Insufficient sleep could be affecting the very institutions and behaviors that keep society from crumbling.
Lack of sleep is proven to affect “private” behaviors, like working, but a new study has shown that exhaustion also has consequences on a national scale. Sleeping less negatively affects the “social behaviors that hold society and democracy together,” according to the study’s authors.
Willingness to vote, donate to charities, and sign petitions decreased in sleep-deprived participants. Although that last one is iffy – is anyone really willing to sign a petition, regardless of sleep intake? One thing to glean from this study is, if you’re holding a clipboard, let the most tired-looking people keep walking.
Perhaps we should start a petition to make the day before Election Day a national napping holiday.
I hear you knocking, but you can’t come in
LOTME takes you to the ends of the earth for this edition of Bacteria vs. the World. Let’s go to our correspondent, Danielle Kang, on the International Space Station.
Hi, this is Briny Baird in Berlin, Germany. The space station’s extreme environment weakens astronauts’ immune systems, but it has the opposite effect on bacteria, as Elisabeth Grohmann, PhD, of Beuth University of Applied Sciences explains.
“The bacteria [astronauts] carry become hardier – developing thick protective coatings and resistance to antibiotics – and more vigorous, multiplying and metabolizing faster.”
This is, as scientists put it, bad. To prevent an on-board bacterial bacchanal, Dr. Grohmann and her associates covered a vital piece of ISS equipment, the toilet door, with a new coating containing “silver and ruthenium, conditioned by a vitamin derivative.” After 19 months in space, the coated section of the door had 80% fewer bacteria on it than an uncoated control surface.
With long-term missions to Mars being considered, it should be safer for astronauts and their toilet doors to … go where no one has gone before. Back to the studio.
The F-bomb diet
You might think vulgarities and Homo sapiens have been an inseparable pair since the first human bashed her thumb while chipping stones into spearheads to add meat to her diet. You’d probably be right – except for blue-tinged language built on the consonant foundations of the letters F and V.
New linguistics research finds that those $#%*! letters, like truckers and Marine gunnery sergeants, are relatively modern developments. As humans moved away from finger-harming hunting and gathering and toward finger-harming farming, they developed a taste for softer foods. And their speech picked up “labiodentals” such as F and V – which are sounds made when we touch our lower lips to our upper teeth. Half the world’s languages are now riddled with soft-food profanities, er, labiodentals.
Next on the linguists’ research list: Does the paleo diet lead to the dropping of fewer F-bombs?
Herpes! In space!
Viruses can never let bacteria have all the fun. Where there’s an immune system weakened by radiation and microgravity, rest assured, our old friend the herpes virus will be waiting for us.
Yes, it looks like frequent bathroom trips won’t be the only issue future Dr. McCoys will be treating. According to a study published in Frontiers in Microbiology, four of the eight herpes viruses were discovered in the saliva and urine of more than half of the hundred or so astronauts who had samples analyzed during spaceflight.
The good news is that only six astronauts actually had symptoms emerge, all of which were minor. The bad news is that the strength, frequency, and duration of viral shedding through urine and saliva increased as more time was spent in space. Also, only one of the herpes varieties found has a vaccine. The rest will just have to be treated as symptoms emerge.
We’ll just hope Captain Kirk doesn’t come down with a case of mononucleosis while fighting the Klingons. Damn it, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!
Spring
There is little to want for living in San Diego, America’s Finest City. The weather here is 72 and sunny year round. Yet, there are shortcomings. For one, there are no Forsythia. Forsythia are the deciduous shrubs that act as the harbingers of spring, blooming brilliant yellow across cold gray damp parts of the United States right now.
I grew up in New England where Forsythia bushes flower this time of year – a most welcome sign that the winter’s worst was over. Along with the purple crocus plants popping up in the warm bits of grass that breaks through the snow, seeing the Forsythia bloom always evoked that most appealing of feelings, hope. Hope that the discomfort of winter has passed. Hope that the beauty of nature will return. A promise that this year’s cycle of life will continue.
. A future with less suffering or with more joy. And as their doctors, we can help them get there.
A newly insured patient came to see me today. She had severe psoriasis. Her face, masked with red scaly patches, was heavy with the burden of the long winter she had endured. She was itchy and flaky and so embarrassed as to struggle to make eye contact with me. When I told her that we could help her, that there are treatments for her that would clear up the psoriasis and relieve her symptoms, she started to cry. Her husband intervened, apologizing for her. “I’m sorry. She has had this for so long, and you are the first person to tell her that she can get better. You have given us hope.”
When I walked back to my office I noticed the Rhode Island flag that I have mounted. Under the stars and blue anchor on it is the word “hope.” In 1664, when the state seal was created, it was the most important of ideas. It is why the settlers of Rhode Island risked their lives to cross an ocean to start anew, why my ancestors came from Italy two centuries later, why my parents sent me to college, why I decided to try for medicine. It is what most of us give every day. Hope, the ability to see into the future and bring that feeling back to the present. The belief that whatever and wherever you are, soon it will be even better. It cannot, however, be commanded. You can’t insist a patient hope any more than you can make them love. You must first understand what they see and feel, then show them how things might be better through trust.
Throughout life, hope creates possibilities. It unites us. It motivates us. It is the destroyer of winter and of burnout and of disease. It is one of the most important gifts that we give patients, and we do it everyday. Tomorrow in your practice, notice how often you foster it. Pay attention to how your patient changes the moment you give it to them. Watch the Forsythia bloom as you reassure them that their spring will return again.
“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare 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].
There is little to want for living in San Diego, America’s Finest City. The weather here is 72 and sunny year round. Yet, there are shortcomings. For one, there are no Forsythia. Forsythia are the deciduous shrubs that act as the harbingers of spring, blooming brilliant yellow across cold gray damp parts of the United States right now.
I grew up in New England where Forsythia bushes flower this time of year – a most welcome sign that the winter’s worst was over. Along with the purple crocus plants popping up in the warm bits of grass that breaks through the snow, seeing the Forsythia bloom always evoked that most appealing of feelings, hope. Hope that the discomfort of winter has passed. Hope that the beauty of nature will return. A promise that this year’s cycle of life will continue.
. A future with less suffering or with more joy. And as their doctors, we can help them get there.
A newly insured patient came to see me today. She had severe psoriasis. Her face, masked with red scaly patches, was heavy with the burden of the long winter she had endured. She was itchy and flaky and so embarrassed as to struggle to make eye contact with me. When I told her that we could help her, that there are treatments for her that would clear up the psoriasis and relieve her symptoms, she started to cry. Her husband intervened, apologizing for her. “I’m sorry. She has had this for so long, and you are the first person to tell her that she can get better. You have given us hope.”
When I walked back to my office I noticed the Rhode Island flag that I have mounted. Under the stars and blue anchor on it is the word “hope.” In 1664, when the state seal was created, it was the most important of ideas. It is why the settlers of Rhode Island risked their lives to cross an ocean to start anew, why my ancestors came from Italy two centuries later, why my parents sent me to college, why I decided to try for medicine. It is what most of us give every day. Hope, the ability to see into the future and bring that feeling back to the present. The belief that whatever and wherever you are, soon it will be even better. It cannot, however, be commanded. You can’t insist a patient hope any more than you can make them love. You must first understand what they see and feel, then show them how things might be better through trust.
Throughout life, hope creates possibilities. It unites us. It motivates us. It is the destroyer of winter and of burnout and of disease. It is one of the most important gifts that we give patients, and we do it everyday. Tomorrow in your practice, notice how often you foster it. Pay attention to how your patient changes the moment you give it to them. Watch the Forsythia bloom as you reassure them that their spring will return again.
“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare 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].
There is little to want for living in San Diego, America’s Finest City. The weather here is 72 and sunny year round. Yet, there are shortcomings. For one, there are no Forsythia. Forsythia are the deciduous shrubs that act as the harbingers of spring, blooming brilliant yellow across cold gray damp parts of the United States right now.
I grew up in New England where Forsythia bushes flower this time of year – a most welcome sign that the winter’s worst was over. Along with the purple crocus plants popping up in the warm bits of grass that breaks through the snow, seeing the Forsythia bloom always evoked that most appealing of feelings, hope. Hope that the discomfort of winter has passed. Hope that the beauty of nature will return. A promise that this year’s cycle of life will continue.
. A future with less suffering or with more joy. And as their doctors, we can help them get there.
A newly insured patient came to see me today. She had severe psoriasis. Her face, masked with red scaly patches, was heavy with the burden of the long winter she had endured. She was itchy and flaky and so embarrassed as to struggle to make eye contact with me. When I told her that we could help her, that there are treatments for her that would clear up the psoriasis and relieve her symptoms, she started to cry. Her husband intervened, apologizing for her. “I’m sorry. She has had this for so long, and you are the first person to tell her that she can get better. You have given us hope.”
When I walked back to my office I noticed the Rhode Island flag that I have mounted. Under the stars and blue anchor on it is the word “hope.” In 1664, when the state seal was created, it was the most important of ideas. It is why the settlers of Rhode Island risked their lives to cross an ocean to start anew, why my ancestors came from Italy two centuries later, why my parents sent me to college, why I decided to try for medicine. It is what most of us give every day. Hope, the ability to see into the future and bring that feeling back to the present. The belief that whatever and wherever you are, soon it will be even better. It cannot, however, be commanded. You can’t insist a patient hope any more than you can make them love. You must first understand what they see and feel, then show them how things might be better through trust.
Throughout life, hope creates possibilities. It unites us. It motivates us. It is the destroyer of winter and of burnout and of disease. It is one of the most important gifts that we give patients, and we do it everyday. Tomorrow in your practice, notice how often you foster it. Pay attention to how your patient changes the moment you give it to them. Watch the Forsythia bloom as you reassure them that their spring will return again.
“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare 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].
Challenges in outpatient psychiatry
The patient who shuns our recommendations can be very frustrating to treat
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.
“I don’t understand why it’s so hard for me to get up and get started in the mornings,” my patient said. She was on the verge of losing her job for repeatedly being late to work.
“I really believe you’d have an easier time if you didn’t drink every night then start your mornings with that wake-up shot of gin,” I replied.
“Here we go again,” she said, exasperated with me.
It was a conversation that has been going on for years (literally) and with which we have both been quite frustrated. My patient wants to get better, she asks for my help, and then she refuses any solutions I might suggest.
Patients with addictions have their own challenges; this patient does not want to stop drinking and all my efforts to suggest that alcohol is part of the problem simply don’t matter. When it became clear that it was not simply a matter of her willingness to believe that alcohol was a problem, I made stronger suggestions. She should try a 12-step program, and when that recommendation was scorned, I insisted she go to an outpatient intensive program and pressed the name and phone number into her palm. There have been prescriptions for oral naltrexone, which initially was helpful until the patient stopped taking it, and an offer for a topiramate trial. At the suggestion of a colleague, I even offered to go with her to an intake for substance use treatment. None of my efforts, however, change the fact that this patient does not want these interventions, and our treatment plans don’t seem to converge.
Patients with addictions are often complex, and the forces in play are more than simply the agreement that a problem exists and a desire to stop. Patients who want – yet don’t want – help come in many varieties. We’ve all sat with patients who refuse to take the medications we prescribe or who come back appointment after appointment still never having turned on the lightbox we convinced them to purchase. There are patients who are miserably troubled by being overweight but are not open to changing their diet, exercising, joining a weight-loss group, taking medications, or having bariatric surgery. There are patients who insist they can’t stop smoking but won’t give any of the available treatments a try. There are those we badger to get the lab work that make it safe for them to continue on the medications we prescribe. There are moments when we may wonder what more we have to offer patients who either can’t or won’t follow our suggestions, what may have once been considered “doctor’s orders.”
These are the patients we’ve referred to as “noncompliant.” It’s a term that recently has been questioned, and one that implies a willful refusal to abide by a physician’s decision. Often, it’s worth exploring what holds them back from following our directions. The term noncompliance implies that the person is a bad patient and it does not leave room for the idea that the patient may not agree with the diagnosis or treatment plan or is unwilling to accept the cost or risk of the prescribed solution. Sometimes, understanding what leads a patient to resist can be helpful; unwarranted fears can be addressed and logistical barriers may be overcome.
In some cases, these patient encounters may leave us feeling helpless and worried. In the worst of these cases, where a patient’s refusal to follow through with treatment suggestions may leave them vulnerable to very bad outcomes, I personally have had times when I’ve felt like I’m standing by helplessly watching as a Mack truck speeds into a brick wall.
“In my experience noncompliance is almost always a sign of deeper resistance or ambivalence that needs to be explored,” notes Neha Jain, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Dr. Jain communicated with me about patients who don’t want to take the medications she recommends. “A typical scenario is when a patient comes to see me, but says that either they don’t believe in medications or are extraordinarily sensitive to them. I almost always offer medication as a choice and am quick to offer not taking medication as an option for those who are safe. If they refuse, I’ll review their goals and talk about why they came to see me, a primarily prescribing psychiatrist. This often leads to a deeper discussion of why they are resistant to meds, ranging from the stigma of ‘taking a crazy pill’ to what taking a medication means for their ego. For these patients I might offer a few ‘consulting’ sessions, which are really therapy sessions. Often they either become receptive to taking medicines, or they may continue with therapy alone, either with me or with someone else.”
Peter D. Kramer, MD, a psychiatrist in Providence, R.I., and author of “Ordinarily Well: The Case for Antidepressants,” says that the issues are even more complex when patients hide that they have not complied with the psychiatrist’s recommendations. “It seems to me that noncompliance that remains secret, not discussed with the therapist and then discovered incidentally or belatedly, presents an occasion to consider the success of the therapeutic alliance – in older terms, to think more about the transference.”
Dr. Kramer notes that, as our approach to psychotherapy has changed, the psychiatrist’s response to such behavior has also changed. “The prevailing focus on cognitive therapies assumes that when patients realize that a belief or behavior is illogical, they will correct it. When psychotherapy was more analytic, it focused on the reasons patients engaged in irrational and self-destructive acts repeatedly – and patients’ failure to self-correct didn’t frustrate the therapist so much. Instead you thought, ‘If education worked, I’d be out of a job.’ We deal with failures to trust. We deal with what philosophers call weakness of will. While I can’t say that I am never frustrated or surprised, I do see working with these problems as the reason I am there.”
Sometimes we learn that the patient who dismisses our suggestions has already tried the remedies we are suggesting and is just as frustrated as we are. We may be left with the unfortunate situation that nothing we do seems to foster meaningful change for the patient. In these instances it may be helpful to clarify the goals of treatment and inquire whether he feels he is making progress. We may consider trying other forms of treatment, consultation with another clinician, or more intensive therapy if the patient will agree. Other times, we may be left to rethink our treatment, consider the ways in which the patient does find the treatment helpful, and empathize with our patient’s distress while continuing to gently suggest that there might be options available whenever they feel ready.
So my patient did lose her job. She found another position with more flexible hours and, despite her heavy drinking, her life has gone mostly well. She comes to see me only rarely because the medication I prescribe helps stabilize her mood, but she stopped scheduling her regular psychotherapy sessions. Still, while she manages her life around her drinking, I worry about the toll it is taking, as there has been ample evidence that her body cannot sustain this for much longer. From what I can tell, the fact that I remain available is helpful to both the patient and her family but yes, it’s a little like standing by helplessly and watching a Mack truck race toward a brick wall.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.
The patient who shuns our recommendations can be very frustrating to treat
The patient who shuns our recommendations can be very frustrating to treat
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.
“I don’t understand why it’s so hard for me to get up and get started in the mornings,” my patient said. She was on the verge of losing her job for repeatedly being late to work.
“I really believe you’d have an easier time if you didn’t drink every night then start your mornings with that wake-up shot of gin,” I replied.
“Here we go again,” she said, exasperated with me.
It was a conversation that has been going on for years (literally) and with which we have both been quite frustrated. My patient wants to get better, she asks for my help, and then she refuses any solutions I might suggest.
Patients with addictions have their own challenges; this patient does not want to stop drinking and all my efforts to suggest that alcohol is part of the problem simply don’t matter. When it became clear that it was not simply a matter of her willingness to believe that alcohol was a problem, I made stronger suggestions. She should try a 12-step program, and when that recommendation was scorned, I insisted she go to an outpatient intensive program and pressed the name and phone number into her palm. There have been prescriptions for oral naltrexone, which initially was helpful until the patient stopped taking it, and an offer for a topiramate trial. At the suggestion of a colleague, I even offered to go with her to an intake for substance use treatment. None of my efforts, however, change the fact that this patient does not want these interventions, and our treatment plans don’t seem to converge.
Patients with addictions are often complex, and the forces in play are more than simply the agreement that a problem exists and a desire to stop. Patients who want – yet don’t want – help come in many varieties. We’ve all sat with patients who refuse to take the medications we prescribe or who come back appointment after appointment still never having turned on the lightbox we convinced them to purchase. There are patients who are miserably troubled by being overweight but are not open to changing their diet, exercising, joining a weight-loss group, taking medications, or having bariatric surgery. There are patients who insist they can’t stop smoking but won’t give any of the available treatments a try. There are those we badger to get the lab work that make it safe for them to continue on the medications we prescribe. There are moments when we may wonder what more we have to offer patients who either can’t or won’t follow our suggestions, what may have once been considered “doctor’s orders.”
These are the patients we’ve referred to as “noncompliant.” It’s a term that recently has been questioned, and one that implies a willful refusal to abide by a physician’s decision. Often, it’s worth exploring what holds them back from following our directions. The term noncompliance implies that the person is a bad patient and it does not leave room for the idea that the patient may not agree with the diagnosis or treatment plan or is unwilling to accept the cost or risk of the prescribed solution. Sometimes, understanding what leads a patient to resist can be helpful; unwarranted fears can be addressed and logistical barriers may be overcome.
In some cases, these patient encounters may leave us feeling helpless and worried. In the worst of these cases, where a patient’s refusal to follow through with treatment suggestions may leave them vulnerable to very bad outcomes, I personally have had times when I’ve felt like I’m standing by helplessly watching as a Mack truck speeds into a brick wall.
“In my experience noncompliance is almost always a sign of deeper resistance or ambivalence that needs to be explored,” notes Neha Jain, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Dr. Jain communicated with me about patients who don’t want to take the medications she recommends. “A typical scenario is when a patient comes to see me, but says that either they don’t believe in medications or are extraordinarily sensitive to them. I almost always offer medication as a choice and am quick to offer not taking medication as an option for those who are safe. If they refuse, I’ll review their goals and talk about why they came to see me, a primarily prescribing psychiatrist. This often leads to a deeper discussion of why they are resistant to meds, ranging from the stigma of ‘taking a crazy pill’ to what taking a medication means for their ego. For these patients I might offer a few ‘consulting’ sessions, which are really therapy sessions. Often they either become receptive to taking medicines, or they may continue with therapy alone, either with me or with someone else.”
Peter D. Kramer, MD, a psychiatrist in Providence, R.I., and author of “Ordinarily Well: The Case for Antidepressants,” says that the issues are even more complex when patients hide that they have not complied with the psychiatrist’s recommendations. “It seems to me that noncompliance that remains secret, not discussed with the therapist and then discovered incidentally or belatedly, presents an occasion to consider the success of the therapeutic alliance – in older terms, to think more about the transference.”
Dr. Kramer notes that, as our approach to psychotherapy has changed, the psychiatrist’s response to such behavior has also changed. “The prevailing focus on cognitive therapies assumes that when patients realize that a belief or behavior is illogical, they will correct it. When psychotherapy was more analytic, it focused on the reasons patients engaged in irrational and self-destructive acts repeatedly – and patients’ failure to self-correct didn’t frustrate the therapist so much. Instead you thought, ‘If education worked, I’d be out of a job.’ We deal with failures to trust. We deal with what philosophers call weakness of will. While I can’t say that I am never frustrated or surprised, I do see working with these problems as the reason I am there.”
Sometimes we learn that the patient who dismisses our suggestions has already tried the remedies we are suggesting and is just as frustrated as we are. We may be left with the unfortunate situation that nothing we do seems to foster meaningful change for the patient. In these instances it may be helpful to clarify the goals of treatment and inquire whether he feels he is making progress. We may consider trying other forms of treatment, consultation with another clinician, or more intensive therapy if the patient will agree. Other times, we may be left to rethink our treatment, consider the ways in which the patient does find the treatment helpful, and empathize with our patient’s distress while continuing to gently suggest that there might be options available whenever they feel ready.
So my patient did lose her job. She found another position with more flexible hours and, despite her heavy drinking, her life has gone mostly well. She comes to see me only rarely because the medication I prescribe helps stabilize her mood, but she stopped scheduling her regular psychotherapy sessions. Still, while she manages her life around her drinking, I worry about the toll it is taking, as there has been ample evidence that her body cannot sustain this for much longer. From what I can tell, the fact that I remain available is helpful to both the patient and her family but yes, it’s a little like standing by helplessly and watching a Mack truck race toward a brick wall.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.
“I don’t understand why it’s so hard for me to get up and get started in the mornings,” my patient said. She was on the verge of losing her job for repeatedly being late to work.
“I really believe you’d have an easier time if you didn’t drink every night then start your mornings with that wake-up shot of gin,” I replied.
“Here we go again,” she said, exasperated with me.
It was a conversation that has been going on for years (literally) and with which we have both been quite frustrated. My patient wants to get better, she asks for my help, and then she refuses any solutions I might suggest.
Patients with addictions have their own challenges; this patient does not want to stop drinking and all my efforts to suggest that alcohol is part of the problem simply don’t matter. When it became clear that it was not simply a matter of her willingness to believe that alcohol was a problem, I made stronger suggestions. She should try a 12-step program, and when that recommendation was scorned, I insisted she go to an outpatient intensive program and pressed the name and phone number into her palm. There have been prescriptions for oral naltrexone, which initially was helpful until the patient stopped taking it, and an offer for a topiramate trial. At the suggestion of a colleague, I even offered to go with her to an intake for substance use treatment. None of my efforts, however, change the fact that this patient does not want these interventions, and our treatment plans don’t seem to converge.
Patients with addictions are often complex, and the forces in play are more than simply the agreement that a problem exists and a desire to stop. Patients who want – yet don’t want – help come in many varieties. We’ve all sat with patients who refuse to take the medications we prescribe or who come back appointment after appointment still never having turned on the lightbox we convinced them to purchase. There are patients who are miserably troubled by being overweight but are not open to changing their diet, exercising, joining a weight-loss group, taking medications, or having bariatric surgery. There are patients who insist they can’t stop smoking but won’t give any of the available treatments a try. There are those we badger to get the lab work that make it safe for them to continue on the medications we prescribe. There are moments when we may wonder what more we have to offer patients who either can’t or won’t follow our suggestions, what may have once been considered “doctor’s orders.”
These are the patients we’ve referred to as “noncompliant.” It’s a term that recently has been questioned, and one that implies a willful refusal to abide by a physician’s decision. Often, it’s worth exploring what holds them back from following our directions. The term noncompliance implies that the person is a bad patient and it does not leave room for the idea that the patient may not agree with the diagnosis or treatment plan or is unwilling to accept the cost or risk of the prescribed solution. Sometimes, understanding what leads a patient to resist can be helpful; unwarranted fears can be addressed and logistical barriers may be overcome.
In some cases, these patient encounters may leave us feeling helpless and worried. In the worst of these cases, where a patient’s refusal to follow through with treatment suggestions may leave them vulnerable to very bad outcomes, I personally have had times when I’ve felt like I’m standing by helplessly watching as a Mack truck speeds into a brick wall.
“In my experience noncompliance is almost always a sign of deeper resistance or ambivalence that needs to be explored,” notes Neha Jain, MD, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
Dr. Jain communicated with me about patients who don’t want to take the medications she recommends. “A typical scenario is when a patient comes to see me, but says that either they don’t believe in medications or are extraordinarily sensitive to them. I almost always offer medication as a choice and am quick to offer not taking medication as an option for those who are safe. If they refuse, I’ll review their goals and talk about why they came to see me, a primarily prescribing psychiatrist. This often leads to a deeper discussion of why they are resistant to meds, ranging from the stigma of ‘taking a crazy pill’ to what taking a medication means for their ego. For these patients I might offer a few ‘consulting’ sessions, which are really therapy sessions. Often they either become receptive to taking medicines, or they may continue with therapy alone, either with me or with someone else.”
Peter D. Kramer, MD, a psychiatrist in Providence, R.I., and author of “Ordinarily Well: The Case for Antidepressants,” says that the issues are even more complex when patients hide that they have not complied with the psychiatrist’s recommendations. “It seems to me that noncompliance that remains secret, not discussed with the therapist and then discovered incidentally or belatedly, presents an occasion to consider the success of the therapeutic alliance – in older terms, to think more about the transference.”
Dr. Kramer notes that, as our approach to psychotherapy has changed, the psychiatrist’s response to such behavior has also changed. “The prevailing focus on cognitive therapies assumes that when patients realize that a belief or behavior is illogical, they will correct it. When psychotherapy was more analytic, it focused on the reasons patients engaged in irrational and self-destructive acts repeatedly – and patients’ failure to self-correct didn’t frustrate the therapist so much. Instead you thought, ‘If education worked, I’d be out of a job.’ We deal with failures to trust. We deal with what philosophers call weakness of will. While I can’t say that I am never frustrated or surprised, I do see working with these problems as the reason I am there.”
Sometimes we learn that the patient who dismisses our suggestions has already tried the remedies we are suggesting and is just as frustrated as we are. We may be left with the unfortunate situation that nothing we do seems to foster meaningful change for the patient. In these instances it may be helpful to clarify the goals of treatment and inquire whether he feels he is making progress. We may consider trying other forms of treatment, consultation with another clinician, or more intensive therapy if the patient will agree. Other times, we may be left to rethink our treatment, consider the ways in which the patient does find the treatment helpful, and empathize with our patient’s distress while continuing to gently suggest that there might be options available whenever they feel ready.
So my patient did lose her job. She found another position with more flexible hours and, despite her heavy drinking, her life has gone mostly well. She comes to see me only rarely because the medication I prescribe helps stabilize her mood, but she stopped scheduling her regular psychotherapy sessions. Still, while she manages her life around her drinking, I worry about the toll it is taking, as there has been ample evidence that her body cannot sustain this for much longer. From what I can tell, the fact that I remain available is helpful to both the patient and her family but yes, it’s a little like standing by helplessly and watching a Mack truck race toward a brick wall.
Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.
When to Start Dialysis
Q) I sent a patient with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 15 mL/min to nephrology to start dialysis. He came back to me and said they don’t start dialysis at 15. When do you start? Why?
There is considerable variation in the timing of dialysis initiation. Research suggests that sometimes earlier is not better.
IDEAL, a randomized controlled trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand, evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of earlier versus later dialysis initiation.1 Patients were randomly assigned to start any type of dialysis when their GFR was 8 or 11 mL/min. The results indicated that starting dialysis in a patient with a higher GFR did not lower the mortality or morbidity rate but did increase costs and complications (mostly for vascular access).1
Based on these findings, most of us start dialysis in a patient who has a GFR < 10 mL/min and symptoms of kidney failure. These include a metallic taste in mouth, weight gain (usually due to edema) or loss (cachexia), feeling “poorly,” hard-to-control hypertension, shortness of breath, confusion (uremic brain), odor, skin color changes, and insomnia. Symptomatic patients can be started on dialysis at a higher GFR (usually ≤ 18 mL/min), but there are many hoops to jump through with Medicare.
However, IDEAL was conducted outside the United States and included very few elderly (age > 75) patients with chronic kidney disease. In 2018, Kurella and colleagues published a study that analyzed age and kidney function in a US veteran population.2 Their results showed that age should be included in the “when to start dialysis” calculation. For older veterans, starting dialysis earlier—at a GFR of 10 mL/min—increased survival. However, the researchers pointed out that in this age group, survival is in months (not years) and does not necessarily equate to quality of life.
In conclusion, there is no compelling evidence that initiation of dialysis based solely on measurement of kidney function leads to improvement in clinical outcomes. In otherwise asymptomatic patients, there is no reason to begin dialysis based solely on GFR; age and fragility need to be considered in the equation. Earlier is not always better, and for the elderly patient with multiple comorbidities, dialysis is not always a better choice. —TH
Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA
Georgia Regional Medical Team, Savannah
1. Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, et al; for the IDEAL Trial. A randomized, controlled trial of early versus late initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):609-619.
2. Kurella Tamura M, Desai M, Kapphahn KI, et al. Dialysis versus medical management at different ages and levels of kidney function in veterans with advanced CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(8):2169-2177.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation's Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKF-CAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semi-retired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA, who practices with Georgia Regional Medical Team in Savannah.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation's Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKF-CAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semi-retired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA, who practices with Georgia Regional Medical Team in Savannah.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation's Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKF-CAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semi-retired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA, who practices with Georgia Regional Medical Team in Savannah.
Q) I sent a patient with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 15 mL/min to nephrology to start dialysis. He came back to me and said they don’t start dialysis at 15. When do you start? Why?
There is considerable variation in the timing of dialysis initiation. Research suggests that sometimes earlier is not better.
IDEAL, a randomized controlled trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand, evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of earlier versus later dialysis initiation.1 Patients were randomly assigned to start any type of dialysis when their GFR was 8 or 11 mL/min. The results indicated that starting dialysis in a patient with a higher GFR did not lower the mortality or morbidity rate but did increase costs and complications (mostly for vascular access).1
Based on these findings, most of us start dialysis in a patient who has a GFR < 10 mL/min and symptoms of kidney failure. These include a metallic taste in mouth, weight gain (usually due to edema) or loss (cachexia), feeling “poorly,” hard-to-control hypertension, shortness of breath, confusion (uremic brain), odor, skin color changes, and insomnia. Symptomatic patients can be started on dialysis at a higher GFR (usually ≤ 18 mL/min), but there are many hoops to jump through with Medicare.
However, IDEAL was conducted outside the United States and included very few elderly (age > 75) patients with chronic kidney disease. In 2018, Kurella and colleagues published a study that analyzed age and kidney function in a US veteran population.2 Their results showed that age should be included in the “when to start dialysis” calculation. For older veterans, starting dialysis earlier—at a GFR of 10 mL/min—increased survival. However, the researchers pointed out that in this age group, survival is in months (not years) and does not necessarily equate to quality of life.
In conclusion, there is no compelling evidence that initiation of dialysis based solely on measurement of kidney function leads to improvement in clinical outcomes. In otherwise asymptomatic patients, there is no reason to begin dialysis based solely on GFR; age and fragility need to be considered in the equation. Earlier is not always better, and for the elderly patient with multiple comorbidities, dialysis is not always a better choice. —TH
Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA
Georgia Regional Medical Team, Savannah
Q) I sent a patient with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 15 mL/min to nephrology to start dialysis. He came back to me and said they don’t start dialysis at 15. When do you start? Why?
There is considerable variation in the timing of dialysis initiation. Research suggests that sometimes earlier is not better.
IDEAL, a randomized controlled trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand, evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of earlier versus later dialysis initiation.1 Patients were randomly assigned to start any type of dialysis when their GFR was 8 or 11 mL/min. The results indicated that starting dialysis in a patient with a higher GFR did not lower the mortality or morbidity rate but did increase costs and complications (mostly for vascular access).1
Based on these findings, most of us start dialysis in a patient who has a GFR < 10 mL/min and symptoms of kidney failure. These include a metallic taste in mouth, weight gain (usually due to edema) or loss (cachexia), feeling “poorly,” hard-to-control hypertension, shortness of breath, confusion (uremic brain), odor, skin color changes, and insomnia. Symptomatic patients can be started on dialysis at a higher GFR (usually ≤ 18 mL/min), but there are many hoops to jump through with Medicare.
However, IDEAL was conducted outside the United States and included very few elderly (age > 75) patients with chronic kidney disease. In 2018, Kurella and colleagues published a study that analyzed age and kidney function in a US veteran population.2 Their results showed that age should be included in the “when to start dialysis” calculation. For older veterans, starting dialysis earlier—at a GFR of 10 mL/min—increased survival. However, the researchers pointed out that in this age group, survival is in months (not years) and does not necessarily equate to quality of life.
In conclusion, there is no compelling evidence that initiation of dialysis based solely on measurement of kidney function leads to improvement in clinical outcomes. In otherwise asymptomatic patients, there is no reason to begin dialysis based solely on GFR; age and fragility need to be considered in the equation. Earlier is not always better, and for the elderly patient with multiple comorbidities, dialysis is not always a better choice. —TH
Tricia Howard, MHS, PA-C, DFAAPA
Georgia Regional Medical Team, Savannah
1. Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, et al; for the IDEAL Trial. A randomized, controlled trial of early versus late initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):609-619.
2. Kurella Tamura M, Desai M, Kapphahn KI, et al. Dialysis versus medical management at different ages and levels of kidney function in veterans with advanced CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(8):2169-2177.
1. Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, et al; for the IDEAL Trial. A randomized, controlled trial of early versus late initiation of dialysis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(7):609-619.
2. Kurella Tamura M, Desai M, Kapphahn KI, et al. Dialysis versus medical management at different ages and levels of kidney function in veterans with advanced CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(8):2169-2177.
Industry-funded rheumatology RCTs are higher quality
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
MAUI, HAWAII – Industry-funded randomized, controlled clinical trials published in the three top-rated rheumatology journals during the past 20 years are of significantly higher overall quality than the nonindustry-funded ones, Michael Putman, MD, said at the 2019 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Putman, a second-year rheumatology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, analyzed all randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy featuring a comparator – either placebo or an active agent – published in 1998, 2008, and 2018 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, and Arthritis & Rheumatology.
His main takeaway: “Rheumatologic interventions seem to work pretty well. The mean absolute risk reduction in the trials is 17.5%, so the average number of patients who need to be treated with a rheumatologic intervention is about five. This is why it’s such a great specialty to be a part of: A lot of our patients get better.”
He created an RCT quality rating scale that captured the strength of study design, methodology, and findings based upon whether a randomized trial used a double-blind design; identified a prespecified primary outcome; and featured patient-reported outcomes, power calculations, sensitivity analysis, adjustment for multiple hypotheses, and intention-to-treat analysis. He then applied the rating scale to the 85 published RCTs in the three study years.
Of note, 84% of the trials published in 2018 were industry funded, up from 74% in 2008 and 1998.
“Industry funds the vast majority of studies. Industry studies are significantly more likely to be appropriately double blinded, report patient-reported outcome measures, use intention to treat, and they have a higher overall quality,” according to Dr. Putman.
Indeed, the industry-funded studies averaged a 66% score on his quality grading scale, compared with 45% for nonindustry-funded studies.
Utilization of most of the quality metrics remained stable over time. The exceptions: Incorporation of intent-to-treat analysis increased from 58% in 1998 to 87% in 2018, and sensitivity analysis was employed in just 5% of the trials published in 1998, compared with 37% in 2008 and 26% in 2018.
The most important change over the past 2 decades, in his view, has been the shrinking proportion of RCTs featuring an active-drug, head-to-head comparator arm. In 1998, 42% of studies featured that design; for example, comparing methotrexate to sulfasalazine. By 2018, that figure had dropped to just 13%.
“Most of our trials today compare an active compound, such an interleukin-17 inhibitor, to a placebo. I think that’s a big change in how we do things,” Dr. Putman observed. “With 84% of our studies being funded by industry, the incentives in medicine right now don’t support active comparator research. It’s harder to show a difference between two things that work than it is to show a difference between something and nothing.”
However, he’d welcome a revival of head-to-head active comparator trials.
“I’d really love to have that happen,” he said. “We have basic questions we haven’t answered yet about a lot of our basic drugs: Like in myositis, should you start with Imuran [azathioprine], CellCept [mycophenolate mofetil], or methotrexate?”
Another striking change over time has been the dwindling proportion of published trials with a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome: 79% in 1998, 46% in 2008, and 36% last year. Dr. Putman suspects the explanation lies in the steady improvement in the effectiveness of standard background therapy for many conditions, which makes it tougher to show a striking difference between the add-on study drug and add-on placebo.
“We’re a victim of our own success,” he commented.
In any event, many key secondary outcomes in the RCTs were positive, even when the primary endpoint wasn’t, according to Dr. Putman, and there was a notable dearth of completely negative clinical RCTs published in the three top journals.
“The more cynical interpretation is there’s an incredible amount of publication bias, where we’re only publishing studies that show an effect and the journals or investigators are censoring the ones that don’t. The more charitable explanation, which is probably also true, is that by the time you get to putting on an RCT you kind of think, ‘This thing works.’ You’re not testing random stuff, so your pretest probability of a drug being effective when it enters into an RCT is probably shifted toward effectiveness,” Dr. Putman speculated.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2019
Acne take home messages from the AAD annual meeting
WASHINGTON – In an interview at the close of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, .
Both Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., and is the immediate past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society, and Dr. Keri, of the department of dermatology at the University of Miami and the Miami VA Healthcare System, spoke during several acne sessions. Among the topics they discussed during the interview were a relatively recent meta-analysis that provides reassuring information about depression and isotretinoin, how to start patients on spironolactone, and the use of antibiotics – and benzoyl peroxide.
They emphasized the importance of not withholding treatment for patients who need it and the psychosocial impact of acne. “Patients need to get to the treatment they need ... faster,” Dr. Harper said. “We want to treat sooner, and we want to prevent scarring,” Dr. Keri added.
Dr. Keri disclosed relationships with Hoffmann–La Roche, Ortho Dermatologics, and Pierre Fabre Dermatologie. Dr. Harper has no relevant financial disclosures.
WASHINGTON – In an interview at the close of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, .
Both Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., and is the immediate past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society, and Dr. Keri, of the department of dermatology at the University of Miami and the Miami VA Healthcare System, spoke during several acne sessions. Among the topics they discussed during the interview were a relatively recent meta-analysis that provides reassuring information about depression and isotretinoin, how to start patients on spironolactone, and the use of antibiotics – and benzoyl peroxide.
They emphasized the importance of not withholding treatment for patients who need it and the psychosocial impact of acne. “Patients need to get to the treatment they need ... faster,” Dr. Harper said. “We want to treat sooner, and we want to prevent scarring,” Dr. Keri added.
Dr. Keri disclosed relationships with Hoffmann–La Roche, Ortho Dermatologics, and Pierre Fabre Dermatologie. Dr. Harper has no relevant financial disclosures.
WASHINGTON – In an interview at the close of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, .
Both Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., and is the immediate past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society, and Dr. Keri, of the department of dermatology at the University of Miami and the Miami VA Healthcare System, spoke during several acne sessions. Among the topics they discussed during the interview were a relatively recent meta-analysis that provides reassuring information about depression and isotretinoin, how to start patients on spironolactone, and the use of antibiotics – and benzoyl peroxide.
They emphasized the importance of not withholding treatment for patients who need it and the psychosocial impact of acne. “Patients need to get to the treatment they need ... faster,” Dr. Harper said. “We want to treat sooner, and we want to prevent scarring,” Dr. Keri added.
Dr. Keri disclosed relationships with Hoffmann–La Roche, Ortho Dermatologics, and Pierre Fabre Dermatologie. Dr. Harper has no relevant financial disclosures.
Sore on arm
The FP suspected that this was a skin cancer with ulceration rather than a dermatitis because of the ulceration and polymorphous vessels on dermoscopy. The differential diagnosis included squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and basal cell carcinoma.
The FP explained to the patient that a biopsy would be needed and suggested a broad shave biopsy because it would provide adequate tissue to the pathologist. The physician performed a broad shave biopsy with a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy report came back as amelanotic melanoma with a depth of 1.5 mm.
While most melanomas have visible pigment, some melanomas will present without pigmentation. Based on a Breslow depth of 1.5 mm, the patient was sent to Surgical Oncology for a wide excision with 1 cm margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Fortunately, the sentinel lymph node biopsy did not show any metastasis. The FP advised the patient that he would require regular skin surveillance and would need to take skin care precautions when exposed to the sun.
Photo courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Squamous cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1103-1111.
To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/
You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com
The FP suspected that this was a skin cancer with ulceration rather than a dermatitis because of the ulceration and polymorphous vessels on dermoscopy. The differential diagnosis included squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and basal cell carcinoma.
The FP explained to the patient that a biopsy would be needed and suggested a broad shave biopsy because it would provide adequate tissue to the pathologist. The physician performed a broad shave biopsy with a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy report came back as amelanotic melanoma with a depth of 1.5 mm.
While most melanomas have visible pigment, some melanomas will present without pigmentation. Based on a Breslow depth of 1.5 mm, the patient was sent to Surgical Oncology for a wide excision with 1 cm margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Fortunately, the sentinel lymph node biopsy did not show any metastasis. The FP advised the patient that he would require regular skin surveillance and would need to take skin care precautions when exposed to the sun.
Photo courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Squamous cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1103-1111.
To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/
You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com
The FP suspected that this was a skin cancer with ulceration rather than a dermatitis because of the ulceration and polymorphous vessels on dermoscopy. The differential diagnosis included squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and basal cell carcinoma.
The FP explained to the patient that a biopsy would be needed and suggested a broad shave biopsy because it would provide adequate tissue to the pathologist. The physician performed a broad shave biopsy with a DermaBlade. (See the Watch & Learn video on “Shave biopsy.”) The biopsy report came back as amelanotic melanoma with a depth of 1.5 mm.
While most melanomas have visible pigment, some melanomas will present without pigmentation. Based on a Breslow depth of 1.5 mm, the patient was sent to Surgical Oncology for a wide excision with 1 cm margins and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Fortunately, the sentinel lymph node biopsy did not show any metastasis. The FP advised the patient that he would require regular skin surveillance and would need to take skin care precautions when exposed to the sun.
Photo courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD. This case was adapted from: Karnes J, Usatine R. Squamous cell carcinoma. In: Usatine R, Smith M, Mayeaux EJ, et al. Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2019:1103-1111.
To learn more about the newest 3rd edition of the Color Atlas and Synopsis of Family Medicine, see: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Atlas-Synopsis-Family-Medicine/dp/1259862046/
You can get the Color Atlas of Family Medicine app by clicking on this link: usatinemedia.com
For patients with end-stage liver disease, acute care incurs steep costs
End-of-life care for patients with end-stage liver disease cost more than four of the five most expensive chronic medical conditions, according to the findings of a population-based study in Canada.
During their final year of life, patients with end-stage liver disease incurred a median of $51,191 Canadian dollars in health care costs (interquartile range, $28,510-$86,659) – approximately $2,360 more than ischemic heart disease, $1,830 more than diabetes, $1,600 more than mental health disorders, and $600 more than congestive heart failure, Erin M. Kelly, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Only chronic renal disease cost more (median, $55,453). Most health care costs of end-stage liver disease covered the final 90 days of life and were tied to high use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
In the United States, more than 150,000 patients are hospitalized for end-stage liver disease every year at a price tag of $4 billion, Dr. Kelly and her associates noted. This price tag is expected to rise further because of epidemic levels of obesity and related nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The shortage of livers for transplantation and the fact that many patients with cirrhosis are not transplantation candidates leave many in end-of-life care. Given the lack of population-level data on costs of this care, the researchers studied data for all individuals who died in Ontario – Canada’s largest province – between April 2010 and March 2013. The data source was the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, a nonprofit group that tracks diagnoses, health care, outcomes, and costs.
Among 264,723 decedents, 5,087 (1.9%) had a diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. These patients died a median of 15 years earlier than other patients (median age of death, 65 vs. 80 years old). During the last year of life, 99% visited the emergency department or were hospitalized, compared with 86% of other patients. Importantly, health care costs for the two groups were similar up until the final 90 days of life, when there was “a clear divergence,” the researchers said. A total of 51% of the costs of the final 12 months of care related to acute care during the final 90 days of life. Consequently, during their last 3 months, patients with end-stage liver disease cost the health care system 46% more than other individuals, the difference remained statistically significant after accounting for demographics and comorbidities, and the picture changed little after excluding transplantation patients and those with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Medical care for patients with end-stage liver disease is complex – often involving serious infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal dysfunction, electrolyte disturbances, and worsening encephalopathy – and often involves frequent hospital readmissions, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, the findings highlight the need to consider steps such as advanced care planning and palliative care to help keep patients with end-stage liver disease from dying in acute care settings, they concluded. Such steps “may direct services toward more appropriate sectors, while reducing costs.”
The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supported the work. The researchers reported having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Kelly EM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.046.
End-of-life care for patients with end-stage liver disease cost more than four of the five most expensive chronic medical conditions, according to the findings of a population-based study in Canada.
During their final year of life, patients with end-stage liver disease incurred a median of $51,191 Canadian dollars in health care costs (interquartile range, $28,510-$86,659) – approximately $2,360 more than ischemic heart disease, $1,830 more than diabetes, $1,600 more than mental health disorders, and $600 more than congestive heart failure, Erin M. Kelly, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Only chronic renal disease cost more (median, $55,453). Most health care costs of end-stage liver disease covered the final 90 days of life and were tied to high use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
In the United States, more than 150,000 patients are hospitalized for end-stage liver disease every year at a price tag of $4 billion, Dr. Kelly and her associates noted. This price tag is expected to rise further because of epidemic levels of obesity and related nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The shortage of livers for transplantation and the fact that many patients with cirrhosis are not transplantation candidates leave many in end-of-life care. Given the lack of population-level data on costs of this care, the researchers studied data for all individuals who died in Ontario – Canada’s largest province – between April 2010 and March 2013. The data source was the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, a nonprofit group that tracks diagnoses, health care, outcomes, and costs.
Among 264,723 decedents, 5,087 (1.9%) had a diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. These patients died a median of 15 years earlier than other patients (median age of death, 65 vs. 80 years old). During the last year of life, 99% visited the emergency department or were hospitalized, compared with 86% of other patients. Importantly, health care costs for the two groups were similar up until the final 90 days of life, when there was “a clear divergence,” the researchers said. A total of 51% of the costs of the final 12 months of care related to acute care during the final 90 days of life. Consequently, during their last 3 months, patients with end-stage liver disease cost the health care system 46% more than other individuals, the difference remained statistically significant after accounting for demographics and comorbidities, and the picture changed little after excluding transplantation patients and those with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Medical care for patients with end-stage liver disease is complex – often involving serious infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal dysfunction, electrolyte disturbances, and worsening encephalopathy – and often involves frequent hospital readmissions, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, the findings highlight the need to consider steps such as advanced care planning and palliative care to help keep patients with end-stage liver disease from dying in acute care settings, they concluded. Such steps “may direct services toward more appropriate sectors, while reducing costs.”
The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supported the work. The researchers reported having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Kelly EM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.046.
End-of-life care for patients with end-stage liver disease cost more than four of the five most expensive chronic medical conditions, according to the findings of a population-based study in Canada.
During their final year of life, patients with end-stage liver disease incurred a median of $51,191 Canadian dollars in health care costs (interquartile range, $28,510-$86,659) – approximately $2,360 more than ischemic heart disease, $1,830 more than diabetes, $1,600 more than mental health disorders, and $600 more than congestive heart failure, Erin M. Kelly, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Only chronic renal disease cost more (median, $55,453). Most health care costs of end-stage liver disease covered the final 90 days of life and were tied to high use of hospital resources, the researchers said.
In the United States, more than 150,000 patients are hospitalized for end-stage liver disease every year at a price tag of $4 billion, Dr. Kelly and her associates noted. This price tag is expected to rise further because of epidemic levels of obesity and related nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The shortage of livers for transplantation and the fact that many patients with cirrhosis are not transplantation candidates leave many in end-of-life care. Given the lack of population-level data on costs of this care, the researchers studied data for all individuals who died in Ontario – Canada’s largest province – between April 2010 and March 2013. The data source was the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, a nonprofit group that tracks diagnoses, health care, outcomes, and costs.
Among 264,723 decedents, 5,087 (1.9%) had a diagnosis of end-stage liver disease. These patients died a median of 15 years earlier than other patients (median age of death, 65 vs. 80 years old). During the last year of life, 99% visited the emergency department or were hospitalized, compared with 86% of other patients. Importantly, health care costs for the two groups were similar up until the final 90 days of life, when there was “a clear divergence,” the researchers said. A total of 51% of the costs of the final 12 months of care related to acute care during the final 90 days of life. Consequently, during their last 3 months, patients with end-stage liver disease cost the health care system 46% more than other individuals, the difference remained statistically significant after accounting for demographics and comorbidities, and the picture changed little after excluding transplantation patients and those with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Medical care for patients with end-stage liver disease is complex – often involving serious infections, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal dysfunction, electrolyte disturbances, and worsening encephalopathy – and often involves frequent hospital readmissions, the researchers noted. Nonetheless, the findings highlight the need to consider steps such as advanced care planning and palliative care to help keep patients with end-stage liver disease from dying in acute care settings, they concluded. Such steps “may direct services toward more appropriate sectors, while reducing costs.”
The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care supported the work. The researchers reported having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Kelly EM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.01.046.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
DDNA19: The NASH conundrum
Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, chairman of the department of medicine at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Medical Campus, discusses the progressive form of NAFLD -- NASH -- and its optimal treatment.
Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, chairman of the department of medicine at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Medical Campus, discusses the progressive form of NAFLD -- NASH -- and its optimal treatment.
Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, chairman of the department of medicine at Inova Fairfax (Va.) Medical Campus, discusses the progressive form of NAFLD -- NASH -- and its optimal treatment.
AT DIGESTIVE DISEASES: NEW ADVANCES 2019
No biological benefits from alcohol seen in rheumatoid arthritis
, according to a study published online March 20 in Arthritis Care & Research.
Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors wrote that previous studies had suggested a link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower disease activity, better quality of life, and better functional status in people with rheumatoid arthritis. This link may tempt clinicians “to encourage moderate alcohol consumption among patients with RA,” the researchers wrote, and so it prompted them to examine the relationship more closely.
The researchers studied 16,762 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis in the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases who had been asked about alcohol use and disease activity in a series of semiannual surveys, providing a total of 121,280 observations, at which 53% reported using alcohol.
Across the observations taken from the semiannual surveys, a total of 8.2% reported discontinuing alcohol consumption from one survey to the next, and 8.4% of abstainers reported initiating alcohol use. Importantly, individuals with high disease activity had a significantly shorter time to discontinuation of alcohol, and those with a moderate or high Patient Activity Scale-II (PAS-II) score were 36% more likely to stop alcohol consumption, compared with individuals who had a low PAS-II score.
Individuals who were older or obese or had more comorbidities or greater work disability were all independently more likely to discontinue alcohol use, while those less likely to give up alcohol tended to be white, male, and have higher physical and mental quality of life, higher educational level, and greater household income.
Participants with moderate or high PAS-II scores were also less likely to start consuming alcohol in comparison to those with low scores.
“Overall, these observations suggest that patients with RA are substantially less likely to use alcohol when their disease activity is high and their health and quality of life are poor,” the authors wrote. “This study also found that active drinking, recent discontinuation of drinking, and recent initiation of drinking were not associated with disease activity or death in this population when considering the reasons for the changes in behavior.”
They said this offered a different explanation for the previously observed association between alcohol use and lower disease activity by showing an effect of reverse causality rather than any biologically protective effect of alcohol.
While the study also found a strong link between discontinuation of alcohol use and increased subsequent mortality, they suggested this was also likely a function of disease activity and disability, rather than the effect of giving up alcohol.
The study was funded by grants to several authors from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of the current work.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1002/acr.23847.
, according to a study published online March 20 in Arthritis Care & Research.
Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors wrote that previous studies had suggested a link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower disease activity, better quality of life, and better functional status in people with rheumatoid arthritis. This link may tempt clinicians “to encourage moderate alcohol consumption among patients with RA,” the researchers wrote, and so it prompted them to examine the relationship more closely.
The researchers studied 16,762 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis in the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases who had been asked about alcohol use and disease activity in a series of semiannual surveys, providing a total of 121,280 observations, at which 53% reported using alcohol.
Across the observations taken from the semiannual surveys, a total of 8.2% reported discontinuing alcohol consumption from one survey to the next, and 8.4% of abstainers reported initiating alcohol use. Importantly, individuals with high disease activity had a significantly shorter time to discontinuation of alcohol, and those with a moderate or high Patient Activity Scale-II (PAS-II) score were 36% more likely to stop alcohol consumption, compared with individuals who had a low PAS-II score.
Individuals who were older or obese or had more comorbidities or greater work disability were all independently more likely to discontinue alcohol use, while those less likely to give up alcohol tended to be white, male, and have higher physical and mental quality of life, higher educational level, and greater household income.
Participants with moderate or high PAS-II scores were also less likely to start consuming alcohol in comparison to those with low scores.
“Overall, these observations suggest that patients with RA are substantially less likely to use alcohol when their disease activity is high and their health and quality of life are poor,” the authors wrote. “This study also found that active drinking, recent discontinuation of drinking, and recent initiation of drinking were not associated with disease activity or death in this population when considering the reasons for the changes in behavior.”
They said this offered a different explanation for the previously observed association between alcohol use and lower disease activity by showing an effect of reverse causality rather than any biologically protective effect of alcohol.
While the study also found a strong link between discontinuation of alcohol use and increased subsequent mortality, they suggested this was also likely a function of disease activity and disability, rather than the effect of giving up alcohol.
The study was funded by grants to several authors from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of the current work.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1002/acr.23847.
, according to a study published online March 20 in Arthritis Care & Research.
Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and his coauthors wrote that previous studies had suggested a link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower disease activity, better quality of life, and better functional status in people with rheumatoid arthritis. This link may tempt clinicians “to encourage moderate alcohol consumption among patients with RA,” the researchers wrote, and so it prompted them to examine the relationship more closely.
The researchers studied 16,762 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis in the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases who had been asked about alcohol use and disease activity in a series of semiannual surveys, providing a total of 121,280 observations, at which 53% reported using alcohol.
Across the observations taken from the semiannual surveys, a total of 8.2% reported discontinuing alcohol consumption from one survey to the next, and 8.4% of abstainers reported initiating alcohol use. Importantly, individuals with high disease activity had a significantly shorter time to discontinuation of alcohol, and those with a moderate or high Patient Activity Scale-II (PAS-II) score were 36% more likely to stop alcohol consumption, compared with individuals who had a low PAS-II score.
Individuals who were older or obese or had more comorbidities or greater work disability were all independently more likely to discontinue alcohol use, while those less likely to give up alcohol tended to be white, male, and have higher physical and mental quality of life, higher educational level, and greater household income.
Participants with moderate or high PAS-II scores were also less likely to start consuming alcohol in comparison to those with low scores.
“Overall, these observations suggest that patients with RA are substantially less likely to use alcohol when their disease activity is high and their health and quality of life are poor,” the authors wrote. “This study also found that active drinking, recent discontinuation of drinking, and recent initiation of drinking were not associated with disease activity or death in this population when considering the reasons for the changes in behavior.”
They said this offered a different explanation for the previously observed association between alcohol use and lower disease activity by showing an effect of reverse causality rather than any biologically protective effect of alcohol.
While the study also found a strong link between discontinuation of alcohol use and increased subsequent mortality, they suggested this was also likely a function of disease activity and disability, rather than the effect of giving up alcohol.
The study was funded by grants to several authors from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb outside of the current work.
SOURCE: Baker J et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Mar 20. doi: 10.1002/acr.23847.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH