MDedge Rheumatology

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On April 4, Oregon’s Governor Tina Kotek signed a bill into law that officially changed the title of “physician assistants” to “physician associates” in the state. The switch is the first of its kind in the United States and comes on the heels of a decision from 2021 by the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) to change the meaning of “PA” to “physician associate” from “physician assistant.”

In the Medscape Physician Assistant Career Satisfaction Report 2023, a diverse range of opinions on the title switch was reflected. Only 40% of PAs favored the name change at the time, 45% neither opposed nor favored it, and 15% opposed the name change, reflecting the complexity of the issue.

According to the AAPA, the change came about to better reflect the work PAs do in not just “assisting” physicians but in working independently with patients. Some also felt that the word “assistant” implies dependence. However, despite associate’s more accurate reflection of the job, PAs mostly remain split on whether they want the new moniker.

Many say that the name change will be confusing for the public and their patients, while others say that physician assistant was already not well understood, as patients often thought of the profession as a doctor’s helper or an assistant, like a medical assistant.

Yet many long-time PAs say that they prefer the title they’ve always had and that explaining to patients the new associate title will be equally confusing. Some mentioned patients may think they’re a business associate of the physician.

Oregon PAs won’t immediately switch to the new name. The new law takes effect on June 6, 2024. The Oregon Medical Board will establish regulations and guidance before PAs adopt the new name in their practices.

The law only changes the name of PAs in Oregon, not in other states. In fact, prematurely using the title of physician associate could subject a PA to regulatory challenges or disciplinary actions.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparison is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Warren and colleagues ran a study that included biological DMARD-naive patients and patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) with PsA who received bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks; 431 and 267 patients, respectively) and guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks; 495 and 189 patients, respectively). They demonstrate that in biological DMARD-naive patients, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and minimal disease activity outcome at week 52 compared with guselkumab. Similar outcomes were observed in the TNFi-IR subgroup. Thus, bimekizumab may be more effective than guselkumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab vs guselkumab are required.

With the availability of multiple targeted therapies for PsA, choosing the most effective and safe drug for a patient is difficult, especially in the absence of many head-to-head clinical trials. To help address this problem, Lin and Ren conducted a network meta-analysis of head-to-head active comparison studies in PsA. They included 17 studies in their analysis and demonstrated that Janus kinase inhibitors had the highest probability of achieving ACR 20/50/70 response. Treatment with IL-17A inhibitors was more likely than TNFi therapy to lead to resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and achieving combined ACR 50 and Psoriasis Area Severity Index 100 response. Patients receiving phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors were least likely to have adverse events. They conclude that when both efficacy and safety are considered, IL-17A inhibitors may be the better agent for initial therapy for PsA. IL-17A inhibitors are indeed safe and efficacious in PsA; more direct head-to-head comparisons as well as strategy trials are required to determine choice of first and subsequent therapy in PsA.

Infections are the most important adverse effects of targeted therapies. The risk for infection in PsA in real-world settings is not well known. In a cohort study that included 12,071 patients with PsA from the French national health insurance database who were new users of targeted therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, infliximab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib), Bastard and colleagues demonstrated that the incidence of serious infections in users of targeted therapies was 17.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with new users of adalimumab, the risk for serious infections was significantly lower in new users of etanercept (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.97) and ustekinumab (wHR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Thus, the overall risk for serious infections is low, with etanercept and ustekinumab being safer treatment options than adalimumab.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparison is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Warren and colleagues ran a study that included biological DMARD-naive patients and patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) with PsA who received bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks; 431 and 267 patients, respectively) and guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks; 495 and 189 patients, respectively). They demonstrate that in biological DMARD-naive patients, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and minimal disease activity outcome at week 52 compared with guselkumab. Similar outcomes were observed in the TNFi-IR subgroup. Thus, bimekizumab may be more effective than guselkumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab vs guselkumab are required.

With the availability of multiple targeted therapies for PsA, choosing the most effective and safe drug for a patient is difficult, especially in the absence of many head-to-head clinical trials. To help address this problem, Lin and Ren conducted a network meta-analysis of head-to-head active comparison studies in PsA. They included 17 studies in their analysis and demonstrated that Janus kinase inhibitors had the highest probability of achieving ACR 20/50/70 response. Treatment with IL-17A inhibitors was more likely than TNFi therapy to lead to resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and achieving combined ACR 50 and Psoriasis Area Severity Index 100 response. Patients receiving phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors were least likely to have adverse events. They conclude that when both efficacy and safety are considered, IL-17A inhibitors may be the better agent for initial therapy for PsA. IL-17A inhibitors are indeed safe and efficacious in PsA; more direct head-to-head comparisons as well as strategy trials are required to determine choice of first and subsequent therapy in PsA.

Infections are the most important adverse effects of targeted therapies. The risk for infection in PsA in real-world settings is not well known. In a cohort study that included 12,071 patients with PsA from the French national health insurance database who were new users of targeted therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, infliximab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib), Bastard and colleagues demonstrated that the incidence of serious infections in users of targeted therapies was 17.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with new users of adalimumab, the risk for serious infections was significantly lower in new users of etanercept (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.97) and ustekinumab (wHR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Thus, the overall risk for serious infections is low, with etanercept and ustekinumab being safer treatment options than adalimumab.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparison is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Warren and colleagues ran a study that included biological DMARD-naive patients and patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) with PsA who received bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks; 431 and 267 patients, respectively) and guselkumab (100 mg every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks; 495 and 189 patients, respectively). They demonstrate that in biological DMARD-naive patients, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response and minimal disease activity outcome at week 52 compared with guselkumab. Similar outcomes were observed in the TNFi-IR subgroup. Thus, bimekizumab may be more effective than guselkumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab vs guselkumab are required.

With the availability of multiple targeted therapies for PsA, choosing the most effective and safe drug for a patient is difficult, especially in the absence of many head-to-head clinical trials. To help address this problem, Lin and Ren conducted a network meta-analysis of head-to-head active comparison studies in PsA. They included 17 studies in their analysis and demonstrated that Janus kinase inhibitors had the highest probability of achieving ACR 20/50/70 response. Treatment with IL-17A inhibitors was more likely than TNFi therapy to lead to resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and achieving combined ACR 50 and Psoriasis Area Severity Index 100 response. Patients receiving phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors were least likely to have adverse events. They conclude that when both efficacy and safety are considered, IL-17A inhibitors may be the better agent for initial therapy for PsA. IL-17A inhibitors are indeed safe and efficacious in PsA; more direct head-to-head comparisons as well as strategy trials are required to determine choice of first and subsequent therapy in PsA.

Infections are the most important adverse effects of targeted therapies. The risk for infection in PsA in real-world settings is not well known. In a cohort study that included 12,071 patients with PsA from the French national health insurance database who were new users of targeted therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, infliximab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib), Bastard and colleagues demonstrated that the incidence of serious infections in users of targeted therapies was 17.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with new users of adalimumab, the risk for serious infections was significantly lower in new users of etanercept (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53-0.97) and ustekinumab (wHR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Thus, the overall risk for serious infections is low, with etanercept and ustekinumab being safer treatment options than adalimumab.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Companies selling gut microbiome tests directly to consumers offer up a variety of claims to promote their products.

“We analyze the trillions of microbes in your gut microflora and craft a unique formula for your unique gut needs,” one says. “Get actionable dietary, supplement, and lifestyle recommendations from our microbiome experts based on your results, tailored to mom and baby’s biomarkers. ... Any family member like dads or siblings are welcome too,” says another.

The companies assert that they can improve gut health by offering individuals personalized treatments based on their gut microbiome test results. The trouble is, no provider, company, or technology can reliably do that yet.
 

Clinical Implications, Not Applications

The microbiome is the “constellation of microorganisms that call the human body home,” including many strains of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. That constellation comprises some 39 trillion cells.

Although knowledge is increasing on the oral, cutaneous, and vaginal microbiomes, the gut microbiome is arguably the most studied. However, while research is increasingly demonstrating that the gut microbiome has clinical implications, much work needs to be done before reliable applications based on that research are available.

But lack of scientific evidence and validity hasn’t stopped a growing number of companies across the globe from offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests, Erik C. von Rosenvinge, MD, AGAF, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“If you go to their websites, even if it’s not stated overtly, these companies at least give the impression that they’re providing actionable, useful information,” he said. “The sites recommend microbiome testing, and often supplements, probiotics, or other products that they sell. And consumers are told they need to be tested again once they start taking any of these products to see if they’re receiving any benefit.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues authored a recent article in Science  arguing that DTC microbiome tests “lack analytical and clinical validity” — and yet regulation of the industry has been “generally ignored.” They identified 31 companies globally, 17 of which are based in the United States, claiming to have products and/or services aimed at changing the intestinal microbiome.
 

Unreliable, Unregulated

The lack of reliability has been shown by experts who have tested the tests.

“People have taken the same stool sample, sent it to multiple companies, and gotten different results back,” Dr. von Rosenvinge said. “People also have taken a stool sample and sent it to the same company under two different names and received two different results. If the test is unreliable at its foundational level, it’s hard to use it in any clinical way.”

Test users’ methods and the companies’ procedures can affect the results, Dina Kao, MD, a professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, said in an interview.

“So many biases can be introduced at every single step of the way, starting from how the stool sample was collected and how it’s preserved or not being preserved, because that can introduce a lot of noise that would change the analyses. Which primer they’re using to amplify the signals and which bioinformatic pipeline they use are also important,” said Dr. Kao, who presented at the recent Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit, organized by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM).

Different investigators and companies use different technologies, so it’s very difficult to compare them and to create a standard, said Mahmoud Ghannoum, PhD, a professor in the dermatology and pathology departments at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and director of the Center for Medical Mycology at University Hospitals in Cleveland.

The complexity of the gut microbiome makes test standardization more difficult than it is when just one organism is involved, Dr. Ghannoum, who chaired the antifungal subcommittee at the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, said in an interview.

“Even though many researchers are focusing on bacteria, we also have fungi and viruses. We need standardization of methods for testing these organisms if we want to have regulations,” said Dr. Ghannoum, a cofounder of BIOHM, a microbiome company that offers nondiagnostic tests and markets a variety of probiotics, prebiotics, and immunity supplements. BIOHM is one of the 31 companies identified by Dr. von Rosenvinge and colleagues, as noted above.

Dr. Ghannoum believes that taking a systematic approach could facilitate standardization and, ultimately, regulation of the DTC microbiome testing products. He and his colleagues described such an approach by outlining the stages for designing probiotics capable of modulating the microbiome in chronic diseases, using Crohn’s disease as a model. Their strategy involved the following steps:

• Using primary microbiome data to identify, by abundance, the microorganisms underlying dysbiosis.
• Gaining insight into the interactions among the identified pathogens.
• Conducting a correlation analysis to identify potential lead probiotic strains that antagonize these pathogens and discovering metabolites that can interrupt their interactions.
• Creating a prototype formulation for testing.
• Validating the efficacy of the candidate formulation via preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing.
• Conducting clinical testing.

Dr. Ghannoum recommends that companies use a similar process “to provide evidence that what they are doing will be helpful, not only for them but also for the reputation of the whole industry.”
 

Potential Pitfalls

Whether test results from commercial companies are positioned as wellness aids or diagnostic tools, providing advice based on the results “is where the danger can really come in,” Dr. Kao said. “There is still so much we don’t know about which microbial signatures are associated with each condition.”

“Even when we have a solution, like the Crohn’s exclusion diet, a physician doesn’t know enough of the nuances to give advice to a patient,” she said. “That really should be done under the guidance of an expert dietitian. And if a company is selling probiotics, I personally feel that’s not ethical. I’m pretty sure there’s always going to be some kind of conflict of interest.”

Supplements and probiotics are generally safe, but negative consequences can occur, Dr. von Rosenvinge noted.

“We occasionally see people who end up with liver problems as a result of certain supplements, and rarely, probiotics have been associated with infections from those organisms, usually in those with a compromised immune system,” he said.

Other risks include people taking supplements or probiotics when they actually have a medically treatable condition or delays in diagnosis of a potentially serious underlying condition, such as colon cancer, he said. Some patients may stop taking their traditional medication in favor of taking supplements or may experience a drug-supplement interaction if they take both.
 

What to Tell Patients

“Doctors should be advising against this testing for their patients,” gastroenterologist Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “I explain to patients that these tests are not validated and are clinically meaningless data and not worth the money. There is a reason they are not covered by insurance.

“Recommendations to purchase probiotics or supplements manufactured by the testing company to ‘restore a balanced or healthy microbiome’ clearly seem like a scam,” she added. “I believe some of these companies are capitalizing on patients who are desperate for answers to explain chronic symptoms, such as bloating in irritable bowel syndrome.”

Dr. von Rosenvinge said that the message to patients “is that the science isn’t there yet to support using the results of these tests in a meaningful way. We believe the microbiome is very important in health and disease, but the tests themselves in their current state are not as reliable and reproducible as we would like.”

When patients come in with test results, the first question a clinician should ask is what led them to seek out this type of information in the first place, Dr. von Rosenvinge said.

“Our patient focus groups suggested that many have not gotten clear, satisfactory answers from traditional medicine,” he said. “We don’t have a single test that says, yes, you have irritable bowel syndrome, or no, you don’t. We might suggest things that are helpful for some people and are less helpful for others.”

Dr. Kelly said she worries that “there are snake oil salesmen and cons out there who will gladly take your money. These may be smart people, capable of doing very high-level testing, and even producing very detailed and accurate results, but that doesn’t mean we know what to do with them.”

She hopes to see a microbiome-based diagnostic test in the future, particularly if the ability to therapeutically manipulate the gut microbiome in various diseases becomes a reality.
 

Educate Clinicians, Companies

More education is needed on the subject, so we can become “microbial clinicians,” Dr. Kao said.

“The microbiome never came up when I was going through my medical education,” she said. But we, and the next generation of physicians, “need to at least be able to understand the basics.

“Hopefully, one day, we will be in a position where we can have meaningful interpretations of the test results and make some kind of meaningful dietary interventions,” Dr. Kao added.

As for clinicians who are currently ordering these tests and products directly from the DTC companies, Dr. Kao said, “I roll my eyes.”

Dr. Ghannoum reiterated that companies offering microbiome tests and products also need to be educated and encouraged to use systematic approaches to product development and interpretation.

“Companies should be open to calls from clinicians and be ready to explain findings on a report, as well as the basis for any recommendations,” he said.

Dr. von Rosenvinge, Dr. Kao, and Dr. Kelly had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Ghannoum is a cofounder of BIOHM.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) not only induced weight loss but also improved knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and obesity, according to results from the STEP 9 study reported at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2024  World Congress.

From baseline to week 68, the mean change in knee pain assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was a reduction of 41.7 points for semaglutide and a decrease of 27.5 points for a matching placebo. The estimated treatment difference of 14.1 points between the groups was statistically significant (P < .001).

As for weight loss, this also fell by a significantly greater amount in the people treated with semaglutide vs those given placebo, with respective reductions of 13.7% and 3.2% from baseline, with an estimated 10.5% greater weight loss with semaglutide.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“The interesting thing is whether there’s a specific action of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the joint, not through the weight loss but by itself,” principal study investigator Henning Bliddal, MD, DMSc, told this news organization ahead of reporting the results at OARSI 2024.

Weight loss is “obviously good” because “the knees suffer from the weight. But whether it’s good for the knee or just for the health or the well-being of the person is another matter,” said Dr. Bliddal, who is director of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.
 

Not Approved in OA

Semaglutide and other potentially weight loss-inducing drugs are not currently indicated for use specifically in OA, Tonia Vincent, MBBS, PhD, told this news organization, and so “I think we have to be very cautious,” she said.

“Weight loss is one of the few things that has been shown to be successful in clinical trials,” said Dr. Vincent, who is a professor of musculoskeletal biology and an honorary rheumatologist at the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology at Oxford University in Oxford, England.

“People always feel better too when they lose weight, so that helps manage pain. So, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t a benefit,” she added.

“I just think we need to know more about the long-term use of these drugs, whether the healthcare system can afford them, and how we would ration them.”
 

Previous Work

The STEP 9 study is not the first time that Dr. Bliddal has investigated the effects of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in people with knee OA, but it is the first to have shown a significant effect on knee pain.

Previously, results from the LOSEIT trial with liraglutide demonstrated that, after an 8-week dietary intervention run-in phase, people who were treated with the GLP-1 receptor agonist lost an average of 2.8 kg in body weight over a period of 1 year, vs a 1.2 kg gain in the placebo group. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, however, were largely unaffected.

“The study was more or less negative for knee pain because at that time we had to pretreat patients with some kind of weight loss before they were allowed to have the liraglutide,” Dr. Bliddal said.

“There’s so many different considerations with diets and the different ways that [dietary modification] is performed, that could be part of the explanation why some people didn’t find the pain relief,” Dr. Bliddal suggested.
 

STEP 9 Study Design

No pre-study dietary intervention was required in the STEP 9 trial, although a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical exercise were used alongside both semaglutide and placebo treatment.

STEP 9 was a multicenter, multinational phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled people if they had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30, had a clinical diagnosis of knee OA with moderate radiographic changes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3), and were experiencing knee pain.

In addition to a baseline WOMAC pain score of at least 40 points (where 0 represents no and 100 the worst pain), the participants had to have a WOMAC numerical rating scale (NRS) score of ≥ 3.1.

A total of 407 participants were recruited and randomly allocated, 2:1, to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of either semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for a total of 68 weeks.

Dr. Bliddal presented demographic information only for the study population as a whole, showing that the mean was 56 years, 81.6% were women, 60.9% were White, 11.8% Native American, 7.6% Black, and 19.7% of other ethnic origin.

Moreover, the mean bodyweight at baseline was 108.6 kg, and the mean baseline BMI was 40.3, with 75% of participants having a BMI ≥ 35. The mean waist circumference was 118.7 cm. The mean baseline WOMAC pain score was 70.9.
 

Other Findings

In addition to the reductions seen in the coprimary endpoints of weight loss and knee pain, the WOMAC physical function score was also reduced from baseline to week 68 to a greater degree in the semaglutide than placebo arm, by a respective 41.5 vs 26.7 points, with a significant estimated treatment difference of -14.9 points.

“The use of pain medication went down as well; you can see the drop was faster in the semaglutide group than the placebo group, and it was maintained throughout the study,” Dr. Bliddal said during his presentation. He noted that patients had to temporarily stop taking pain relievers such as acetaminophen 3 days before their pain was assessed.

Additional findings reported in the abstract, but not presented at the meeting, were a significant estimated treatment difference of -1.0 in NRS pain intensity, more people treated with semaglutide than placebo achieving ≥ 5% (87.0% vs 29.2%) or ≥ 10% (70.4% vs 9.2%) weight loss.

“Safety and tolerability with semaglutide were consistent with the global STEP program and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in general,” Dr. Bliddal reported.

Serious adverse events occurred in a respective 10.0% and 8.1% of participants, and adverse events leading to discontinuation were recorded in 6.7% and 3%. Around one third (2.2%) of those leading to discontinuation in the semaglutide arm were gastrointestinal adverse events.

The STEP 9 study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Henning is a principal investigator for the trial and acknowledged that research grants were received from Novo Nordisk to his institution, as well as consulting fees and honoraria. He has also received congress and travel support from Contura. Dr. Vincent was not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

You know what the happiest animal in the world is? A goldfish. You know why? It’s got a 10-second memory. Be a goldfish. — Ted Lasso

I don’t play much golf. When I do, it’s when my dad is in town. He shoots his age (78). I shoot double mine (52). He was recently here. We played and watched the Masters where he pointed out how I looked a lot like Scottie Scheffler, the now two-time Masters champion. On the 10th hole of his third round, you could see the resemblance. Scheffler’s third shot flew past the hole into the galley. He rifled the fourth past the hole on its way back toward the fairway. It was now a good distance further from the cup than a minute ago. He proceeded to misread his bogey putt, ending his misery with a double bogey. Scheffler went on to bogey the next hole and dropped from first on the leaderboard to fifth. Yes, I looked just like that on my last round. But here is where Scheffler and I differ. After a hole like that, I’d have been apoplectic, seething with self loathing. Scheffler was not. He kept moving. Head up, he sauntered to the next hole as if he had no awareness of what just transpired.

The ability to compartmentalize is useful not only to become the Masters champion, but also to become master of your day. In this way, golf is a nice approximation for life. The best golfers in the world will always have horrible shots and dreadful holes. The winning ones are often those who recover rather than continue in a downward spiral of one bad shot after another.

Dr. Benabio

Kaiser Permanente

Scheffler went on to eagle the 13th hole on that round. He eventually won the 2024 Masters Tournament. Remember that the next time you find yourself in a day that feels like it is spiraling toward disaster. Close the door on the compartment that was the last miserable hole and saunter to the next patient like it never happened.

And maybe close the clubface a bit on address for your next drive. 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who scored high on a sinonasal symptom test are nearly three times as likely to relapse, according to a new study.

These patients reported higher scores months and up to 2 years before a disease flare, despite having low disease activity otherwise.

The study uses a different approach to try to predict relapse, compared with measuring biomarkers in lab tests, said Zachary Wallace, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He was not involved with the study.

“It’s exciting because it might suggest that we could use something as simple as a survey to stratify someone’s risk of relapse,” he told this news organization.

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare disease, with an estimated prevalence of 200-400 cases per million people. It is also heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to predict the risk for relapse for a given patient.

“Investigators have long searched for a reliable prognostic marker that identifies patients at high vs low risk of relapse in AAV but, except for ANCA type, no prognostic biomarker is routinely used to inform treatment decision-making,” wrote lead author Ellen Romich, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Proteinase 3-ANCA (compared with myeloperoxidase-ANCA) has been tied to a higher risk for relapse, as well as gastrointestinal complications, sinonasal disease, and patient global assessment scores. In this new study, Dr. Romich and colleagues evaluated if patient-reported outcomes of sinonasal disease could predict AAV disease activity and relapse.

Researchers used data from a prospective, longitudinal cohort study through the University of Pennsylvania Vasculitis Center from 2016 to 2022. They included 107 patients with GPA, 40 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), 21 patients with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and 51 healthy controls.

Patients completed a median of four clinic visits during the duration of the study.

During each visit, patients filled out the 22-item SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), a validated questionnaire that assesses rhinosinusitis. The tool asks patients to rate a list of symptoms from 0 to 5 in five categories: Rhinologic, extra-nasal, ear and face, psychologic, and sleep. The possible total score ranges from 0 to 110.

Disease activity was measured via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis. The results were published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients were, on average, 55 years old with an AAV duration of 3 years. (The mean age of healthy participants was 59.) More than half (58%) of patients were female, and 95% were White. The majority had a history of a flare (54%), and 60% of those flares had sinonasal involvement.

Even in remission, patients with AAV generally had on average higher SNOT-22 scores than healthy comparators (20 vs 5). Higher disease activity also correlated with higher SNOT-22 scores.

In patients with GPA, a high SNOT-22 score (total score of 41 or above) was associated with an increased risk for relapse within 2 years (hazard ratio, 2.7; P = .02). This association was not found for EGPA or MPA. This higher risk remained in a sensitivity analysis that included only patients with no history of sinonasal disease.

“Interestingly, among patients with GPA, SNOT-22 scores are elevated months to years prior to onset of systemic relapse but remain low in patients in sustained remission,” the authors wrote.

While other patient-reported outcomes have been validated for AAV, SNOT-22 may provide more detail on upper airway disease, commented Paul Monach, MD, PhD, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine and a rheumatologist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts.

“Upper airway GPA has not been studied as much as systemic GPA and MPA,” he told this news organization. “There are very few clinical trials, and we need better outcome measures like this.”

Dr. Romich noted that this work is still in the “early stages,” and SNOT-22 will need to be further studied and validated in other patient cohorts before its inclusion in clinical practice.

“There’s certainly more work that needs to be done to understand how the SNOT-22 questionnaire works in this patient population,” she said, including its predictive value compared with other known risk factors for relapse. “But I think it’s something that’s promising that we could use as a patient-reported outcome to try to, visit-to-visit, track their sinonasal symptoms.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and an NIH Rheumatology Research Training Grant. Dr. Romich, Dr. Wallace, and Monach reported no other relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who scored high on a sinonasal symptom test are nearly three times as likely to relapse, according to a new study.

These patients reported higher scores months and up to 2 years before a disease flare, despite having low disease activity otherwise.

The study uses a different approach to try to predict relapse, compared with measuring biomarkers in lab tests, said Zachary Wallace, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He was not involved with the study.

“It’s exciting because it might suggest that we could use something as simple as a survey to stratify someone’s risk of relapse,” he told this news organization.

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare disease, with an estimated prevalence of 200-400 cases per million people. It is also heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to predict the risk for relapse for a given patient.

“Investigators have long searched for a reliable prognostic marker that identifies patients at high vs low risk of relapse in AAV but, except for ANCA type, no prognostic biomarker is routinely used to inform treatment decision-making,” wrote lead author Ellen Romich, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Proteinase 3-ANCA (compared with myeloperoxidase-ANCA) has been tied to a higher risk for relapse, as well as gastrointestinal complications, sinonasal disease, and patient global assessment scores. In this new study, Dr. Romich and colleagues evaluated if patient-reported outcomes of sinonasal disease could predict AAV disease activity and relapse.

Researchers used data from a prospective, longitudinal cohort study through the University of Pennsylvania Vasculitis Center from 2016 to 2022. They included 107 patients with GPA, 40 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), 21 patients with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and 51 healthy controls.

Patients completed a median of four clinic visits during the duration of the study.

During each visit, patients filled out the 22-item SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), a validated questionnaire that assesses rhinosinusitis. The tool asks patients to rate a list of symptoms from 0 to 5 in five categories: Rhinologic, extra-nasal, ear and face, psychologic, and sleep. The possible total score ranges from 0 to 110.

Disease activity was measured via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis. The results were published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients were, on average, 55 years old with an AAV duration of 3 years. (The mean age of healthy participants was 59.) More than half (58%) of patients were female, and 95% were White. The majority had a history of a flare (54%), and 60% of those flares had sinonasal involvement.

Even in remission, patients with AAV generally had on average higher SNOT-22 scores than healthy comparators (20 vs 5). Higher disease activity also correlated with higher SNOT-22 scores.

In patients with GPA, a high SNOT-22 score (total score of 41 or above) was associated with an increased risk for relapse within 2 years (hazard ratio, 2.7; P = .02). This association was not found for EGPA or MPA. This higher risk remained in a sensitivity analysis that included only patients with no history of sinonasal disease.

“Interestingly, among patients with GPA, SNOT-22 scores are elevated months to years prior to onset of systemic relapse but remain low in patients in sustained remission,” the authors wrote.

While other patient-reported outcomes have been validated for AAV, SNOT-22 may provide more detail on upper airway disease, commented Paul Monach, MD, PhD, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine and a rheumatologist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts.

“Upper airway GPA has not been studied as much as systemic GPA and MPA,” he told this news organization. “There are very few clinical trials, and we need better outcome measures like this.”

Dr. Romich noted that this work is still in the “early stages,” and SNOT-22 will need to be further studied and validated in other patient cohorts before its inclusion in clinical practice.

“There’s certainly more work that needs to be done to understand how the SNOT-22 questionnaire works in this patient population,” she said, including its predictive value compared with other known risk factors for relapse. “But I think it’s something that’s promising that we could use as a patient-reported outcome to try to, visit-to-visit, track their sinonasal symptoms.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and an NIH Rheumatology Research Training Grant. Dr. Romich, Dr. Wallace, and Monach reported no other relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who scored high on a sinonasal symptom test are nearly three times as likely to relapse, according to a new study.

These patients reported higher scores months and up to 2 years before a disease flare, despite having low disease activity otherwise.

The study uses a different approach to try to predict relapse, compared with measuring biomarkers in lab tests, said Zachary Wallace, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He was not involved with the study.

“It’s exciting because it might suggest that we could use something as simple as a survey to stratify someone’s risk of relapse,” he told this news organization.

Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare disease, with an estimated prevalence of 200-400 cases per million people. It is also heterogeneous, which makes it difficult to predict the risk for relapse for a given patient.

“Investigators have long searched for a reliable prognostic marker that identifies patients at high vs low risk of relapse in AAV but, except for ANCA type, no prognostic biomarker is routinely used to inform treatment decision-making,” wrote lead author Ellen Romich, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.

Proteinase 3-ANCA (compared with myeloperoxidase-ANCA) has been tied to a higher risk for relapse, as well as gastrointestinal complications, sinonasal disease, and patient global assessment scores. In this new study, Dr. Romich and colleagues evaluated if patient-reported outcomes of sinonasal disease could predict AAV disease activity and relapse.

Researchers used data from a prospective, longitudinal cohort study through the University of Pennsylvania Vasculitis Center from 2016 to 2022. They included 107 patients with GPA, 40 patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), 21 patients with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and 51 healthy controls.

Patients completed a median of four clinic visits during the duration of the study.

During each visit, patients filled out the 22-item SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), a validated questionnaire that assesses rhinosinusitis. The tool asks patients to rate a list of symptoms from 0 to 5 in five categories: Rhinologic, extra-nasal, ear and face, psychologic, and sleep. The possible total score ranges from 0 to 110.

Disease activity was measured via the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis. The results were published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

Patients were, on average, 55 years old with an AAV duration of 3 years. (The mean age of healthy participants was 59.) More than half (58%) of patients were female, and 95% were White. The majority had a history of a flare (54%), and 60% of those flares had sinonasal involvement.

Even in remission, patients with AAV generally had on average higher SNOT-22 scores than healthy comparators (20 vs 5). Higher disease activity also correlated with higher SNOT-22 scores.

In patients with GPA, a high SNOT-22 score (total score of 41 or above) was associated with an increased risk for relapse within 2 years (hazard ratio, 2.7; P = .02). This association was not found for EGPA or MPA. This higher risk remained in a sensitivity analysis that included only patients with no history of sinonasal disease.

“Interestingly, among patients with GPA, SNOT-22 scores are elevated months to years prior to onset of systemic relapse but remain low in patients in sustained remission,” the authors wrote.

While other patient-reported outcomes have been validated for AAV, SNOT-22 may provide more detail on upper airway disease, commented Paul Monach, MD, PhD, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine and a rheumatologist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts.

“Upper airway GPA has not been studied as much as systemic GPA and MPA,” he told this news organization. “There are very few clinical trials, and we need better outcome measures like this.”

Dr. Romich noted that this work is still in the “early stages,” and SNOT-22 will need to be further studied and validated in other patient cohorts before its inclusion in clinical practice.

“There’s certainly more work that needs to be done to understand how the SNOT-22 questionnaire works in this patient population,” she said, including its predictive value compared with other known risk factors for relapse. “But I think it’s something that’s promising that we could use as a patient-reported outcome to try to, visit-to-visit, track their sinonasal symptoms.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and an NIH Rheumatology Research Training Grant. Dr. Romich, Dr. Wallace, and Monach reported no other relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.