While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.

Fuse/Thinkstock

In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.

Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
 

Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients

2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.

There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”

The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
 

Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education

Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.

Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).

“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”

Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars

Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.

About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.

Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.

Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
 

Ophthalmologists remain wary

Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.

George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.

When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.

Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.

While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.

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

While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.

Fuse/Thinkstock

In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.

Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
 

Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients

2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.

There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”

The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
 

Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education

Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.

Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).

“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”

Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars

Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.

About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.

Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.

Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
 

Ophthalmologists remain wary

Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.

George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.

When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.

Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.

While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.

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

While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.

Fuse/Thinkstock

In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.

Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
 

Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients

2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.

There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”

The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
 

Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education

Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.

Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).

“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”

Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars

Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.

About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.

Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.

Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.

If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
 

Ophthalmologists remain wary

Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.

George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.

When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.

Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.

While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.

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

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Stopping aspirin at 24-28 weeks of gestation has no disadvantage, compared with continuing aspirin full term, for preventing preterm preeclampsia in women at high risk of preeclampsia who have a normal fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor (sFlt-1:PlGF) ratio, a randomized controlled trial has found.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Editorialists advise careful consideration

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ukachi N. Emeruwa, MD, MPH, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues noted that the questions surrounding continuing or discontinuing aspirin in this high-risk population need further consideration.

They added that the results from this study – conducted in nine maternity hospitals across Spain – are hard to translate for the U.S. population.

In this study, Manel Mendoza, PhD, with the maternal fetal medicine unit, department of obstetrics, at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues compared the two approaches because of the potential to mitigate peripartum bleeding by discontinuing aspirin before full term (37 weeks’ gestation) and by an accurate selection of women in the first trimester at higher risk of preeclampsia.
 

Aspirin cuts preterm preeclampsia by 62% in women at high risk

While aspirin might be associated with an increased risk of peripartum bleeding, aspirin has been proven to reduce the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62% in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia.

In the multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3, noninferiority trial, pregnant women who had a high risk of preeclampsia during the first-trimester screening and an sFlt-1:PlGF ratio of 38 or less at 24-28 weeks’ gestation were recruited between Aug. 20, 2019, and Sept. 15, 2021. Of those, 936 were analyzed (473 in the intervention group [stopping aspirin] and 473 in the control group [continuing]).

Screening for risk of preterm preeclampsia included analyzing maternal factors, uterine artery pulsatility index, mean arterial pressure, serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and placental growth factor. Follow-up was until delivery for all participants.

Incidence of preterm preeclampsia was 1.48% in the intervention group (discontinuing aspirin) and 1.73% in the control group (continuing aspirin until 36 weeks of gestation; absolute difference, –0.25%; 95% confidence interval, –1.86% to 1.36%), which indicates noninferiority for stopping aspirin. The bar for noninferiority was less than a 1.9% difference in preterm preeclampsia incidences between groups.

Researchers did find a higher incidence of minor antepartum bleeding in the group that continued aspirin (7.61% in the low-dose aspirin discontinuation group vs. 12.31% in the low-dose aspirin continuation group; absolute difference, –4.70; 95% CI, –8.53 to –0.87).
 

Differences in U.S. guidelines

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues noted the study challenges a growing body of evidence favoring increasingly widespread use of low-dose aspirin in pregnancy.

They called the study “well designed and provocative,” but wrote that the findings are hard to interpret for a U.S. population. Some key differences in the U.S. preeclampsia prevention guidelines, compared with the practices of the study’s authors, included the reliance on clinical maternal factors in the United States for screening for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis as opposed to molecular biomarkers; a different aspirin dose prescribed in the United States (81 mg daily), compared with international societies (150 mg daily); and a lack of a recommendation in the United States to stop prophylactic low-dose aspirin at 36 weeks.

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues also questioned the scope of the outcome measure used.

They wrote that limiting outcomes to preterm preeclampsia dims the effects of all types of preeclampsia on perinatal and maternal outcomes and that early-onset preeclampsia at less than 34 weeks “occurs in just 0.38% of pregnancies, while 3%-5% are affected by late-onset preeclampsia.”
 

‘Late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact’

Dr. Emeruwa and colleagues wrote: “Though the odds of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes are higher with preterm preeclampsia, due to its overall higher incidence, late-onset preeclampsia has a higher overall impact on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.”

The study can inform future U.S. approaches, the editorialists wrote, and build on work already being done in the United States.

The study investigators used biophysical and molecular markers to more accurately assess risk for starting low-dose aspirin prophylaxis in the first trimester and applied a growing body of data showing the high negative predictive value of second-trimester biomarkers.

The editorialists noted that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations would have captured “less than 50% of the at-risk population” that Dr. Mendoza’s team found eligible for low-dose aspirin.

Those factors, the editorialists wrote, point to the potential to improve guidelines for personalized preeclampsia management in pregnancy.

They concluded: “U.S. practitioners and professional societies should reconsider current risk assessment strategies, which are largely based on maternal factors, and evaluate whether incorporation of molecular biomarkers would improve maternal and fetal/neonatal outcomes.”

The study authors acknowledged that 92% of participants in the study were White, thus limiting generalizability.

The authors and editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.

In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.

Daria Nipot/Getty Images

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.

“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
 

Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range

The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.

rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.

The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.

Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.  

The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).

Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.


 

Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit

Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.

Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).

Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.

But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”

Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”

Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”

He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.

“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”

This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.   

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

Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.

In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.

Daria Nipot/Getty Images

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.

“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
 

Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range

The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.

rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.

The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.

Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.  

The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).

Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.


 

Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit

Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.

Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).

Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.

But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”

Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”

Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”

He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.

“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”

This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.   

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

Youth with type 1 diabetes who use real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an insulin pump spend more time in target glucose range than do those using intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) and/or multiple daily insulin injections, new data show.

In the multinational cohort study of more than 4,500 people younger than age 21 with type 1 diabetes, those using rtCGM and pumps also spent less time above and below glucose targets and had fewer severe adverse events – either severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) – compared with injections and isCGM.

Daria Nipot/Getty Images

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Klemen Dovc, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic diseases, University Children’s Hospital, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and colleagues.

“These results underscore the synergistic effect of advanced diabetes technologies that should be more readily available to youths with type 1 diabetes for further improvement of diabetes-related clinical outcomes,” the authors wrote.

Moreover, Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “Clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in effectiveness between different types of devices, and that choosing the right device for each individual may be important for achieving optimal outcomes.”
 

Real-time CGM + insulin pump = highest time in range

The researchers explained that two modalities of CGM are broadly available: rtCGM, which continuously displays glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid (usually at intervals of 1-5 minutes) on a dedicated receiver or other portable device, such as a smartphone, and provides various adjustable alarms, and isCGM, which displays data on demand when the transmitter is scanned using either a dedicated reader or smartphone-based application.

rtCGMs include devices from Dexcom and Medtronic. The isCGM, or “flash,” generally refers to the Abbott FreeStyle Libre.

The study included individuals younger than 21 years from 34 centers in 21 countries in the SWEET registry, a worldwide network of diabetes care centers for youth, between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The researchers didn’t report which particular devices were used in the trial, rather they just divided patients into four groups: 850 used isCGM with a pump, 1,231 used isCGM with multiple daily injections, 2,252 used rtCGM with a pump, and 886 used rtCGM with insulin injections.

After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes duration, and body mass index standard deviation score, rtCGM plus insulin pump was the most likely group to achieve the recommended greater than 70% time in target glycemic range (70-180 mg/dL), with 36.2% achieving it, followed by rtCGM plus injections, at 20.9%, and isCGM plus injections, at 12.5%. Those using isCGM with an insulin pump were the least likely to achieve time in range, at just 11.3%.

Similar trends were seen for the recommended goal of less than 4% of time spent below range (< 70 mg/dL) and less than 25% of time spent above range (> 180 mg/dL). Those using rtCGM with a pump had the highest proportions achieving both of those goals, 73.1% and 32.5%, respectively.  

The use of rtCGM, with or without a pump, was associated with lower rates of severe hypoglycemia (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively) than isCGM with or without a pump (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively).

Similarly, the proportion experiencing at least one DKA episode varied from 1.4% for rtCGM plus insulin pump and 0.7% for rtCGM plus injections to 3.0% for isCGM plus pump and 1.5% isCGM plus injections.


 

Study looked at older technology but results still reflect benefit

Among the rtCGM plus insulin pump group were 264 participants (5% of the total study population) recorded in the database as using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, also known as the artificial pancreas, although this is likely an undercount as the presence of communication between the two devices was not automatically recorded, Dr. Dovc explained.

Those individuals recorded as using AIDs had a higher unadjusted time in range compared with non-AID users (66.3% vs. 59.0%) and lower time above range (30.1% vs. 37.0%) but didn’t differ in time below range (2.9% vs. 3.0%).

Dr. Dovc told this news organization: “While automated systems are becoming more common, there are still many individuals who do not have access to glucose-responsive devices.” Reasons include lack of reimbursement, or decisions not to use them, he said.

But, he added, “Despite the low reported numbers of AID users, results achieved in the pump with real-time CGM [group] are admirable and approaching recommended consensus targets with a clinically meaningful difference towards all other treatment modalities. As our findings may not be directly applicable to all participants using automated systems, they may still provide useful insights into the factors that influence glycemic control.”

Similarly, the intermittently scanned CGMs used by most in the study, and particularly in the earlier period, didn’t have low- or high-glucose alarms as do later versions. And an even more recent version also doesn’t require scanning either, so is essentially also “real-time.”

Dr. Dovc noted, “in the first half of our observational period only first generation of intermittently-scanned CGM was generally available, and we can speculate that only a small proportion started to use second generation towards the end of our observational period. The exact number of second-generation users was not available in this analysis.”

He acknowledged that because the study was observational and not randomized, patient choice of device could have influenced the outcomes.

“For example, participants who choose to use a more expensive device may have more resources or support available to them, which could influence their ability to manage their diabetes effectively. Additionally, individuals who choose to use a particular device may be more motivated or engaged in their diabetes care, which could also impact their outcomes. It would be important for future studies to explore the impact of device selection on device effectiveness and to control for this potential confounding factor in the analysis.”

This study was supported by the international Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) corporate members, including Abbott Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Sanofi, and the Slovenian National Research Agency. Dr. Dovc disclosed ties with Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He served as a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes.   

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

There are times when, as health care providers dealing with the stress of the profession, many doctors feel that tapping into a higher purpose – or even praying – might be a helpful way to cope.

Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
 

Tapping into the universe

Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.

“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”

Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.

“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”

Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.

“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”

Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”

When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.

Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
 

Spirituality supports patients

Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.

“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”

When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”

These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.

Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.

“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”

Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.

“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”

For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.

“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”

There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.

“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
 

Doctors without faith

So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.

The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.

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

There are times when, as health care providers dealing with the stress of the profession, many doctors feel that tapping into a higher purpose – or even praying – might be a helpful way to cope.

Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
 

Tapping into the universe

Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.

“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”

Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.

“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”

Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.

“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”

Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”

When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.

Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
 

Spirituality supports patients

Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.

“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”

When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”

These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.

Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.

“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”

Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.

“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”

For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.

“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”

There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.

“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
 

Doctors without faith

So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.

The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.

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

There are times when, as health care providers dealing with the stress of the profession, many doctors feel that tapping into a higher purpose – or even praying – might be a helpful way to cope.

Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
 

Tapping into the universe

Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.

“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”

Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.

“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”

Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.

“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”

Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”

When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.

Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
 

Spirituality supports patients

Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.

“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”

When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”

These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.

Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.

“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”

Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.

“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”

For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.

“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”

There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.

“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
 

Doctors without faith

So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.

The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.

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

Clustered erythematous macular to papular lesions, especially those that stop at clothing lines, are a frequent manifestation of insect bites. In this case, the lesions lacked a central punctum that is common in many insect bites, so the most likely culprit was bed bugs. It is likely that this patient’s friend inadvertently brought the bed bugs into the home in her luggage or packed belongings. Over time, they spread around the home, causing the patient’s bites and inflammation. When questioned, the patient noted that she could actually see bugs around the couch in her home.

The scientific name for bed bugs is Cimex lectularis. Bed bugs require a blood meal from a host to survive, but they do not remain attached to the human body. Instead, they live in nearby fabrics. Bed bugs are visible to the naked eye when they are in the open, although they usually remain along the seams of fabric, edges of bedding, or in cracks and crevices. Often the feces of bed bugs will collect and be seen as dark spots or streaks on bedding.¹

Treatment hinges on the eradication of the bed bugs. The erythematous itching lesions will resolve spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. Topical corticosteroids, including hydrocortisone, can be used as necessary to control the itching. Oral antihistamines can also help with itching.

Eradication of all the bed bugs in the home can be difficult and warrant professional extermination services. Washing clothing in hot water of at least 140 °F will kill the insects. Freezing items below –4 °F for at least 2 hours is also effective but may not be possible with home freezers.

It’s worth noting that resistance to insecticides has developed, making chemical eradication difficult. An alternative extermination protocol involves heating an entire home to the required temperatures to eradicate the infestation.¹

This patient noted that she had already thrown away the couch, clothes, and bedding where she had seen the insects and had sprayed her apartment with insecticide. She was counseled to contact a professional exterminator to further evaluate the home for any additional areas of infestation and treat if any bed bugs were still in the home. She was also counseled to use loratadine 10 mg/d orally and topical 1% hydrocortisone ointment, as needed, for the itching and inflammation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Clustered erythematous macular to papular lesions, especially those that stop at clothing lines, are a frequent manifestation of insect bites. In this case, the lesions lacked a central punctum that is common in many insect bites, so the most likely culprit was bed bugs. It is likely that this patient’s friend inadvertently brought the bed bugs into the home in her luggage or packed belongings. Over time, they spread around the home, causing the patient’s bites and inflammation. When questioned, the patient noted that she could actually see bugs around the couch in her home.

The scientific name for bed bugs is Cimex lectularis. Bed bugs require a blood meal from a host to survive, but they do not remain attached to the human body. Instead, they live in nearby fabrics. Bed bugs are visible to the naked eye when they are in the open, although they usually remain along the seams of fabric, edges of bedding, or in cracks and crevices. Often the feces of bed bugs will collect and be seen as dark spots or streaks on bedding.¹

Treatment hinges on the eradication of the bed bugs. The erythematous itching lesions will resolve spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. Topical corticosteroids, including hydrocortisone, can be used as necessary to control the itching. Oral antihistamines can also help with itching.

Eradication of all the bed bugs in the home can be difficult and warrant professional extermination services. Washing clothing in hot water of at least 140 °F will kill the insects. Freezing items below –4 °F for at least 2 hours is also effective but may not be possible with home freezers.

It’s worth noting that resistance to insecticides has developed, making chemical eradication difficult. An alternative extermination protocol involves heating an entire home to the required temperatures to eradicate the infestation.¹

This patient noted that she had already thrown away the couch, clothes, and bedding where she had seen the insects and had sprayed her apartment with insecticide. She was counseled to contact a professional exterminator to further evaluate the home for any additional areas of infestation and treat if any bed bugs were still in the home. She was also counseled to use loratadine 10 mg/d orally and topical 1% hydrocortisone ointment, as needed, for the itching and inflammation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Clustered erythematous macular to papular lesions, especially those that stop at clothing lines, are a frequent manifestation of insect bites. In this case, the lesions lacked a central punctum that is common in many insect bites, so the most likely culprit was bed bugs. It is likely that this patient’s friend inadvertently brought the bed bugs into the home in her luggage or packed belongings. Over time, they spread around the home, causing the patient’s bites and inflammation. When questioned, the patient noted that she could actually see bugs around the couch in her home.

The scientific name for bed bugs is Cimex lectularis. Bed bugs require a blood meal from a host to survive, but they do not remain attached to the human body. Instead, they live in nearby fabrics. Bed bugs are visible to the naked eye when they are in the open, although they usually remain along the seams of fabric, edges of bedding, or in cracks and crevices. Often the feces of bed bugs will collect and be seen as dark spots or streaks on bedding.¹

Treatment hinges on the eradication of the bed bugs. The erythematous itching lesions will resolve spontaneously over 1 to 2 weeks. Topical corticosteroids, including hydrocortisone, can be used as necessary to control the itching. Oral antihistamines can also help with itching.

Eradication of all the bed bugs in the home can be difficult and warrant professional extermination services. Washing clothing in hot water of at least 140 °F will kill the insects. Freezing items below –4 °F for at least 2 hours is also effective but may not be possible with home freezers.

It’s worth noting that resistance to insecticides has developed, making chemical eradication difficult. An alternative extermination protocol involves heating an entire home to the required temperatures to eradicate the infestation.¹

This patient noted that she had already thrown away the couch, clothes, and bedding where she had seen the insects and had sprayed her apartment with insecticide. She was counseled to contact a professional exterminator to further evaluate the home for any additional areas of infestation and treat if any bed bugs were still in the home. She was also counseled to use loratadine 10 mg/d orally and topical 1% hydrocortisone ointment, as needed, for the itching and inflammation.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a new clinical practice guideline defining the role of biomarkers in monitoring and managing ulcerative colitis (UC).

There is growing data on how to incorporate biomarkers in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, reported lead guideline panelist Siddharth Singh, MD, of University of California San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., and colleagues.

“[I]n routine clinical practice, repeated endoscopic assessment is invasive, expensive, and may be impractical,” the panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “There is an important need for understanding how noninvasive biomarkers may serve as accurate and reliable surrogates for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and whether they can be more readily implemented in a UC care pathway.”

After reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, Dr. Singh and colleagues issued seven conditional recommendations, three of which concern patients in symptomatic remission, and four of which apply to patients with symptomatically active UC.

“The key take-home message is that the routine measurement of noninvasive biomarkers in addition to assessment of patient reported symptoms is critical in evaluating the disease burden of UC,” said Jordan E. Axelrad, MD, MPH, director of clinical and translational research at NYU Langone Health’s Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, New York. “Many of these recommendations regarding the assessment of disease activity beyond symptoms alone are widely accepted, particularity at tertiary IBD centers; however, this guideline serves to formalize and structure the recommendations, with appropriate test cutoff values, in a simple UC care pathway.”
 

Recommendations for patients in symptomatic remission

For patients in remission, the guideline advises monitoring both symptoms and biomarkers, with biomarkers measured every 6-12 months.

Asymptomatic patients with normal biomarkers can skip routine endoscopy to evaluate disease activity, according to the guideline, but those with abnormal fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, or serum C-reactive protein (CRP) are candidates for endoscopic assessment instead of empiric treatment adjustment. Patients may still need periodic colonoscopy for dysplasia surveillance.

Recommendations for patients with symptomatically active disease

The recommendations for patients with symptomatically active UC follow a similar pathway. The guideline advises an evaluation strategy combining symptoms and biomarkers instead of symptoms alone.

For example, patients with moderate to severe symptoms suggestive of flare and elevated biomarkers are candidates for treatment adjustment without endoscopy.

Still, patient preferences should be considered, Dr. Singh and colleagues noted.

“Patients who place greater value in confirming inflammation, particularly when making significant treatment decisions (such as starting or switching immunosuppressive therapies), and lesser value on the inconvenience of endoscopy, may choose to pursue endoscopic evaluation before treatment adjustment,” they wrote.

For patients with mild symptoms, endoscopy is generally recommended, according to the guideline, unless the patient recently had moderate to severe symptoms and has improved after treatment adjustment; in that case, biomarkers can be used to fine-tune therapy without the need for endoscopy.

Again, providers should engage in shared-decision making, the guideline advises. Patients with mild symptoms but no biomarker results may reasonably elect to undergo endoscopy prior to testing biomarkers, while patients with mild symptoms and normal biomarkers may reasonably elect to retest biomarkers in 3-6 months.
 

Data remain insufficient to recommend biomarkers over endoscopy

Dr. Singh and colleagues concluded the guideline by highlighting an insufficient level of direct evidence necessary to recommend a biomarker-based treat-to-target strategy over endoscopy-based monitoring strategy, despite indirect evidence suggesting this may be the case.

“[T]here have not been any studies comparing a biomarker-based strategy with an endoscopy-based strategy for assessment and monitoring of endoscopic remission,” they wrote. “This was identified as a knowledge gap by the panel.”

The authors disclosed relationships with Pfizer, AbbVie, Lilly, and others. Dr. Axelrad disclosed relationships with Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and others.

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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