User login
Belimumab Autoinjector Approved for Pediatric Lupus
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.
Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.
“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement.
An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.
Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.
The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg.
The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.
“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.
Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.
“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement.
An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.
Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.
The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg.
The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.
“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Benlysta (belimumab) autoinjector for patients aged 5 years or older with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on standard therapy. This is the first time that children with SLE can receive this treatment at home, according to a GSK press release.
Prior to this approval, pediatric patients aged 5 years or older could receive belimumab only intravenously via a 1-hour infusion in a hospital or clinic setting.
“Going to the doctor’s office once every 4 weeks can be a logistical hurdle for some children and their caregivers, so having the option to administer Benlysta in the comfort of their home provides much-needed flexibility,” Mary Crimmings, the interim CEO and senior vice president for marketing and communications at the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a statement.
An estimated 5000-10,000 children in the United States are living with SLE.
Belimumab is a B-lymphocyte stimulator–specific inhibitor approved for the treatment of active SLE and active lupus nephritis in patients aged 5 years or older receiving standard therapy. This approval of the subcutaneous administration of belimumab applies only to pediatric patients with SLE.
The 200-mg injection can be administered once every week for children who weigh ≥ 40 kg and should be given once every 2 weeks for children weighing between 15 and 40 kg.
The autoinjector “will be available immediately” for caregivers, the company announcement said.
“Patients are our top priority, and we are always working to innovate solutions that can improve lives and address unmet needs,” Court Horncastle, senior vice president and head of US specialty at GSK, said in the press release. “This approval for an at-home treatment is the first and only of its kind for children with lupus and is a testament to our continued commitment to the lupus community.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Little Less Talk and a Lot More Action
No matter where one looks for the statistics, no matter what words one chooses to describe it, this country has a child and adolescent mental health crisis. Almost 20% of young people in the 3-17 age bracket have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. COVID-19 has certainly exacerbated the problem, but the downward trend in the mental health of this nation has been going on for decades.
The voices calling for more services to address the problem are getting more numerous and louder. But, what exactly should those services look like and who should be delivering them?
When considered together, two recent research papers suggest that we should be venturing well beyond the usual mental health strategies if we are going to be successful in addressing the current crisis.
The first paper is an analysis by two psychologists who contend that our efforts to raise the awareness of mental issues may be contributing to the increase in reported mental health problems. The authors agree that more attention paid to mental health conditions can result in “more accurate reporting of previous under-recognized symptoms” and would seem to be a positive. However, the investigators also observe that when exposed to this flood of information, some individuals who are only experiencing minor distress may report their symptoms as mental problems. The authors of the paper have coined the term for this phenomenon as “prevalence inflation.” Their preliminary investigation suggests it may be much more common than once believed and they present numerous situations in which prevalence inflation seems to have occurred.
A New York Times article about this hypothesis reports on a British study in which nearly 30,000 teenagers were instructed by their teachers to “direct their attentions to the present moment” and utilize other mindfulness strategies. The educators had hoped that after 8 years of this indoctrination, the students’ mental health would have improved. The bottom line was that this mindfulness-based program was of no help and may have actually made things worse for a subgroup of students who were at greatest risk for mental health challenges.
Dr. Jack Andrews, one of the authors, feels that mindfulness training may encourage what he calls “co-rumination,” which he describes as “the kind of long, unresolved group discussion that churns up problems without finding solutions.” One has to wonder if “prevalence inflation” and “co-rumination,” if they do exist, may be playing a role in the hotly debated phenomenon some have termed “late-onset gender dysphoria.”
Never having been a fan of mindfulness training as an effective strategy, I am relieved to learn that serious investigators are finding evidence that supports my gut reaction.
If raising awareness, “education,” and group discussion aren’t working, and in some cases are actually contributing to the crisis, or at least making the data difficult to interpret, what should we be doing to turn this foundering ship around?
A second paper, coming from Taiwan, may provide an answer. Huey-Ling Chiang and fellow investigators have reported on a study of nearly two million children and adolescents in which they found improved performance in a variety of physical fitness challenges “was linked with a lower risk of mental health disorder.” The dose-dependent effect resulted in less anxiety and depressive disorders as well as less attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder when cardio-respiratory, muscle endurance, and power indices improved.
There have been other observers who have suggested a link between physical fitness and improved mental health, but this Taiwanese study is by far one of the largest. And, the discovery of a dose-dependent effect makes it particularly convincing.
As I reviewed these two papers, I became increasingly frustrated because this is another example in which one of the answers is staring us in the face and we continue to do nothing more than talk about it.
We already know that physically active people are healthier both physically and mentally, but we do little more than talk. It may be helpful for some people to become a bit more self-aware. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that you can’t talk yourself into being mentally healthy without a concurrent effort to actually do the things that can improve your overall health, such as being physically active and adopting healthy sleep habits. A political advisor once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As a community interested in the health of our children and the adults they will become, we need to remind ourselves again, “It’s the old Mind-Body Thing, Stupid.” Our children need a little less talk and a lot more action.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
No matter where one looks for the statistics, no matter what words one chooses to describe it, this country has a child and adolescent mental health crisis. Almost 20% of young people in the 3-17 age bracket have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. COVID-19 has certainly exacerbated the problem, but the downward trend in the mental health of this nation has been going on for decades.
The voices calling for more services to address the problem are getting more numerous and louder. But, what exactly should those services look like and who should be delivering them?
When considered together, two recent research papers suggest that we should be venturing well beyond the usual mental health strategies if we are going to be successful in addressing the current crisis.
The first paper is an analysis by two psychologists who contend that our efforts to raise the awareness of mental issues may be contributing to the increase in reported mental health problems. The authors agree that more attention paid to mental health conditions can result in “more accurate reporting of previous under-recognized symptoms” and would seem to be a positive. However, the investigators also observe that when exposed to this flood of information, some individuals who are only experiencing minor distress may report their symptoms as mental problems. The authors of the paper have coined the term for this phenomenon as “prevalence inflation.” Their preliminary investigation suggests it may be much more common than once believed and they present numerous situations in which prevalence inflation seems to have occurred.
A New York Times article about this hypothesis reports on a British study in which nearly 30,000 teenagers were instructed by their teachers to “direct their attentions to the present moment” and utilize other mindfulness strategies. The educators had hoped that after 8 years of this indoctrination, the students’ mental health would have improved. The bottom line was that this mindfulness-based program was of no help and may have actually made things worse for a subgroup of students who were at greatest risk for mental health challenges.
Dr. Jack Andrews, one of the authors, feels that mindfulness training may encourage what he calls “co-rumination,” which he describes as “the kind of long, unresolved group discussion that churns up problems without finding solutions.” One has to wonder if “prevalence inflation” and “co-rumination,” if they do exist, may be playing a role in the hotly debated phenomenon some have termed “late-onset gender dysphoria.”
Never having been a fan of mindfulness training as an effective strategy, I am relieved to learn that serious investigators are finding evidence that supports my gut reaction.
If raising awareness, “education,” and group discussion aren’t working, and in some cases are actually contributing to the crisis, or at least making the data difficult to interpret, what should we be doing to turn this foundering ship around?
A second paper, coming from Taiwan, may provide an answer. Huey-Ling Chiang and fellow investigators have reported on a study of nearly two million children and adolescents in which they found improved performance in a variety of physical fitness challenges “was linked with a lower risk of mental health disorder.” The dose-dependent effect resulted in less anxiety and depressive disorders as well as less attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder when cardio-respiratory, muscle endurance, and power indices improved.
There have been other observers who have suggested a link between physical fitness and improved mental health, but this Taiwanese study is by far one of the largest. And, the discovery of a dose-dependent effect makes it particularly convincing.
As I reviewed these two papers, I became increasingly frustrated because this is another example in which one of the answers is staring us in the face and we continue to do nothing more than talk about it.
We already know that physically active people are healthier both physically and mentally, but we do little more than talk. It may be helpful for some people to become a bit more self-aware. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that you can’t talk yourself into being mentally healthy without a concurrent effort to actually do the things that can improve your overall health, such as being physically active and adopting healthy sleep habits. A political advisor once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As a community interested in the health of our children and the adults they will become, we need to remind ourselves again, “It’s the old Mind-Body Thing, Stupid.” Our children need a little less talk and a lot more action.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
No matter where one looks for the statistics, no matter what words one chooses to describe it, this country has a child and adolescent mental health crisis. Almost 20% of young people in the 3-17 age bracket have a mental, emotional, developmental, or behavioral disorder. COVID-19 has certainly exacerbated the problem, but the downward trend in the mental health of this nation has been going on for decades.
The voices calling for more services to address the problem are getting more numerous and louder. But, what exactly should those services look like and who should be delivering them?
When considered together, two recent research papers suggest that we should be venturing well beyond the usual mental health strategies if we are going to be successful in addressing the current crisis.
The first paper is an analysis by two psychologists who contend that our efforts to raise the awareness of mental issues may be contributing to the increase in reported mental health problems. The authors agree that more attention paid to mental health conditions can result in “more accurate reporting of previous under-recognized symptoms” and would seem to be a positive. However, the investigators also observe that when exposed to this flood of information, some individuals who are only experiencing minor distress may report their symptoms as mental problems. The authors of the paper have coined the term for this phenomenon as “prevalence inflation.” Their preliminary investigation suggests it may be much more common than once believed and they present numerous situations in which prevalence inflation seems to have occurred.
A New York Times article about this hypothesis reports on a British study in which nearly 30,000 teenagers were instructed by their teachers to “direct their attentions to the present moment” and utilize other mindfulness strategies. The educators had hoped that after 8 years of this indoctrination, the students’ mental health would have improved. The bottom line was that this mindfulness-based program was of no help and may have actually made things worse for a subgroup of students who were at greatest risk for mental health challenges.
Dr. Jack Andrews, one of the authors, feels that mindfulness training may encourage what he calls “co-rumination,” which he describes as “the kind of long, unresolved group discussion that churns up problems without finding solutions.” One has to wonder if “prevalence inflation” and “co-rumination,” if they do exist, may be playing a role in the hotly debated phenomenon some have termed “late-onset gender dysphoria.”
Never having been a fan of mindfulness training as an effective strategy, I am relieved to learn that serious investigators are finding evidence that supports my gut reaction.
If raising awareness, “education,” and group discussion aren’t working, and in some cases are actually contributing to the crisis, or at least making the data difficult to interpret, what should we be doing to turn this foundering ship around?
A second paper, coming from Taiwan, may provide an answer. Huey-Ling Chiang and fellow investigators have reported on a study of nearly two million children and adolescents in which they found improved performance in a variety of physical fitness challenges “was linked with a lower risk of mental health disorder.” The dose-dependent effect resulted in less anxiety and depressive disorders as well as less attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder when cardio-respiratory, muscle endurance, and power indices improved.
There have been other observers who have suggested a link between physical fitness and improved mental health, but this Taiwanese study is by far one of the largest. And, the discovery of a dose-dependent effect makes it particularly convincing.
As I reviewed these two papers, I became increasingly frustrated because this is another example in which one of the answers is staring us in the face and we continue to do nothing more than talk about it.
We already know that physically active people are healthier both physically and mentally, but we do little more than talk. It may be helpful for some people to become a bit more self-aware. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that you can’t talk yourself into being mentally healthy without a concurrent effort to actually do the things that can improve your overall health, such as being physically active and adopting healthy sleep habits. A political advisor once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As a community interested in the health of our children and the adults they will become, we need to remind ourselves again, “It’s the old Mind-Body Thing, Stupid.” Our children need a little less talk and a lot more action.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Specialists Are ‘Underwater’ With Some Insurance-Preferred Biosimilars
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).
According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.
Quantifying the Problem
To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.
However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
How Did This Happen?
Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.
For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.
While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
What Is Being Done to Correct This?
Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.
This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored
Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.
Ultimate Solution?
This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.
While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.
To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
CPAP Underperforms: The Sequel
A few months ago, I posted a column on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with the title, “CPAP Oversells and Underperforms.” To date, it has 299 likes and 90 comments, which are almost all negative. I’m glad to see that it’s generated interest, and I’d like to address some of the themes expressed in the posts.
Most comments were personal testimonies to the miracles of CPAP. These are important, and the point deserves emphasis. CPAP can provide significant improvements in daytime sleepiness and quality of life. I closed the original piece by acknowledging this important fact. Readers can be forgiven for missing it given that the title and text were otherwise disparaging of CPAP.
But several comments warrant a more in-depth discussion. The original piece focuses on CPAP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes but made no mention of atrial fibrillation (AF) or ejection fraction (EF). The effects of CPAP on each are touted by cardiologists and PAP-pushers alike and are drivers of frequent referrals. It›s my fault for omitting them from the discussion.
AF is easy. The data is identical to all other things CPAP and CV. Based on biologic plausibility alone, the likelihood of a relationship between AF and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is similar to the odds that the Celtics raise an 18th banner come June. There’s hypoxia, intrathoracic pressure swings, sympathetic surges, and sleep state disruptions. It’s easy to get from there to arrhythmogenesis. There’s lots of observational noise, too, but no randomized proof that CPAP alters this relationship.
I found four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested CPAP’s effect on AF. I’ll save you the suspense; they were all negative. One even found a signal for more adverse events in the CPAP group. These studies have several positive qualities: They enrolled patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and high oxygen desaturation indices, adherence averaged more than 4 hours across all groups in all trials, and the methods for assessing the AF outcomes differed slightly. There’s also a lot not to like: The sample sizes were small, only one trial enrolled “sleepy” patients (as assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Score), and follow-up was short.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.” As a statistician would say, type II error cannot be excluded by these RCTs. In medicine, however, the burden of proof falls on demonstrating efficacy. If we treat before concluding that a therapy works, we risk wasting time, money, medical resources, and the most precious of patient commodities: the energy required for behavior change. In their response to letters to the editor, the authors of the third RCT summarize the CPAP, AF, and CV disease data far better than I ever could. They sound the same words of caution and come out against screening patients with AF for OSA.
The story for CPAP’s effects on EF is similar though muddier. The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for heart failure cite a meta-analysis showing that CPAP improves left ventricular EF. In 2019, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) CPAP guidelines included a systematic review and meta-analysis that found that CPAP has no effect on left ventricular EF in patients with or without heart failure.
There are a million reasons why two systematic reviews on the same topic might come to different conclusions. In this case, the included studies only partially overlap, and broadly speaking, it appears the authors made trade-offs. The review cited by the ACC/AHA had broader inclusion and significantly more patients and paid for it in heterogeneity (I2 in the 80%-90% range). The AASM analysis achieved 0% heterogeneity but limited inclusion to fewer than 100 patients. Across both, the improvement in EF was 2%- 5% at a minimally clinically important difference of 4%. Hardly convincing.
In summary, the road to negative trials and patient harm has always been paved with observational signal and biologic plausibility. Throw in some intellectual and academic bias, and you’ve created the perfect storm of therapeutic overconfidence.
Dr. Holley is a professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a physician at Pulmonary/Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A few months ago, I posted a column on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with the title, “CPAP Oversells and Underperforms.” To date, it has 299 likes and 90 comments, which are almost all negative. I’m glad to see that it’s generated interest, and I’d like to address some of the themes expressed in the posts.
Most comments were personal testimonies to the miracles of CPAP. These are important, and the point deserves emphasis. CPAP can provide significant improvements in daytime sleepiness and quality of life. I closed the original piece by acknowledging this important fact. Readers can be forgiven for missing it given that the title and text were otherwise disparaging of CPAP.
But several comments warrant a more in-depth discussion. The original piece focuses on CPAP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes but made no mention of atrial fibrillation (AF) or ejection fraction (EF). The effects of CPAP on each are touted by cardiologists and PAP-pushers alike and are drivers of frequent referrals. It›s my fault for omitting them from the discussion.
AF is easy. The data is identical to all other things CPAP and CV. Based on biologic plausibility alone, the likelihood of a relationship between AF and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is similar to the odds that the Celtics raise an 18th banner come June. There’s hypoxia, intrathoracic pressure swings, sympathetic surges, and sleep state disruptions. It’s easy to get from there to arrhythmogenesis. There’s lots of observational noise, too, but no randomized proof that CPAP alters this relationship.
I found four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested CPAP’s effect on AF. I’ll save you the suspense; they were all negative. One even found a signal for more adverse events in the CPAP group. These studies have several positive qualities: They enrolled patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and high oxygen desaturation indices, adherence averaged more than 4 hours across all groups in all trials, and the methods for assessing the AF outcomes differed slightly. There’s also a lot not to like: The sample sizes were small, only one trial enrolled “sleepy” patients (as assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Score), and follow-up was short.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.” As a statistician would say, type II error cannot be excluded by these RCTs. In medicine, however, the burden of proof falls on demonstrating efficacy. If we treat before concluding that a therapy works, we risk wasting time, money, medical resources, and the most precious of patient commodities: the energy required for behavior change. In their response to letters to the editor, the authors of the third RCT summarize the CPAP, AF, and CV disease data far better than I ever could. They sound the same words of caution and come out against screening patients with AF for OSA.
The story for CPAP’s effects on EF is similar though muddier. The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for heart failure cite a meta-analysis showing that CPAP improves left ventricular EF. In 2019, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) CPAP guidelines included a systematic review and meta-analysis that found that CPAP has no effect on left ventricular EF in patients with or without heart failure.
There are a million reasons why two systematic reviews on the same topic might come to different conclusions. In this case, the included studies only partially overlap, and broadly speaking, it appears the authors made trade-offs. The review cited by the ACC/AHA had broader inclusion and significantly more patients and paid for it in heterogeneity (I2 in the 80%-90% range). The AASM analysis achieved 0% heterogeneity but limited inclusion to fewer than 100 patients. Across both, the improvement in EF was 2%- 5% at a minimally clinically important difference of 4%. Hardly convincing.
In summary, the road to negative trials and patient harm has always been paved with observational signal and biologic plausibility. Throw in some intellectual and academic bias, and you’ve created the perfect storm of therapeutic overconfidence.
Dr. Holley is a professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a physician at Pulmonary/Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
A few months ago, I posted a column on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with the title, “CPAP Oversells and Underperforms.” To date, it has 299 likes and 90 comments, which are almost all negative. I’m glad to see that it’s generated interest, and I’d like to address some of the themes expressed in the posts.
Most comments were personal testimonies to the miracles of CPAP. These are important, and the point deserves emphasis. CPAP can provide significant improvements in daytime sleepiness and quality of life. I closed the original piece by acknowledging this important fact. Readers can be forgiven for missing it given that the title and text were otherwise disparaging of CPAP.
But several comments warrant a more in-depth discussion. The original piece focuses on CPAP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes but made no mention of atrial fibrillation (AF) or ejection fraction (EF). The effects of CPAP on each are touted by cardiologists and PAP-pushers alike and are drivers of frequent referrals. It›s my fault for omitting them from the discussion.
AF is easy. The data is identical to all other things CPAP and CV. Based on biologic plausibility alone, the likelihood of a relationship between AF and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is similar to the odds that the Celtics raise an 18th banner come June. There’s hypoxia, intrathoracic pressure swings, sympathetic surges, and sleep state disruptions. It’s easy to get from there to arrhythmogenesis. There’s lots of observational noise, too, but no randomized proof that CPAP alters this relationship.
I found four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested CPAP’s effect on AF. I’ll save you the suspense; they were all negative. One even found a signal for more adverse events in the CPAP group. These studies have several positive qualities: They enrolled patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea and high oxygen desaturation indices, adherence averaged more than 4 hours across all groups in all trials, and the methods for assessing the AF outcomes differed slightly. There’s also a lot not to like: The sample sizes were small, only one trial enrolled “sleepy” patients (as assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Score), and follow-up was short.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.” As a statistician would say, type II error cannot be excluded by these RCTs. In medicine, however, the burden of proof falls on demonstrating efficacy. If we treat before concluding that a therapy works, we risk wasting time, money, medical resources, and the most precious of patient commodities: the energy required for behavior change. In their response to letters to the editor, the authors of the third RCT summarize the CPAP, AF, and CV disease data far better than I ever could. They sound the same words of caution and come out against screening patients with AF for OSA.
The story for CPAP’s effects on EF is similar though muddier. The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for heart failure cite a meta-analysis showing that CPAP improves left ventricular EF. In 2019, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) CPAP guidelines included a systematic review and meta-analysis that found that CPAP has no effect on left ventricular EF in patients with or without heart failure.
There are a million reasons why two systematic reviews on the same topic might come to different conclusions. In this case, the included studies only partially overlap, and broadly speaking, it appears the authors made trade-offs. The review cited by the ACC/AHA had broader inclusion and significantly more patients and paid for it in heterogeneity (I2 in the 80%-90% range). The AASM analysis achieved 0% heterogeneity but limited inclusion to fewer than 100 patients. Across both, the improvement in EF was 2%- 5% at a minimally clinically important difference of 4%. Hardly convincing.
In summary, the road to negative trials and patient harm has always been paved with observational signal and biologic plausibility. Throw in some intellectual and academic bias, and you’ve created the perfect storm of therapeutic overconfidence.
Dr. Holley is a professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a physician at Pulmonary/Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
When Medicine Isn’t the Last Stop
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
A distant friend and I were recently chatting by email. After years of trying, she’s become a successful author, and decided to leave medicine to focus on the new career.
She’s excited about this, as it’s really what she’s always dreamed of doing, but at the same time feels guilty about it. Leaving medicine for a new career isn’t quite the same as quitting your job as a waitress or insurance salesman. You’ve put a lot of time, and effort, and money, into becoming an attending physician.
I also once dreamed of being a successful writer (amongst other things) but have no complaints about where I landed. I like what I do. Besides, I don’t have her kind of imagination.
It’s a valid point, though. Becoming a doc in practice takes a minimum of 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school. Then you tack on a residency of 3 years (internal medicine) to 7 years (neurosurgery). On top of that many add another 1-2 years for fellowship training. So you’re talking a bare minimum of at least 11 years, ranging up to 17 years.
Then you think of how much money was spent on college and medical school — tuition, living expenses, loan interest, not to mention the emotional toll of the training.
You also have to think that somewhere in there you got a chance to become a doctor while someone else didn’t.
So, I can see why she feels guilty, but she shouldn’t. She’s paid back all her loans, so no one else is left carrying the financial bag. The argument about denying someone else a spot can be kind of flimsy when you don’t know how that person might have turned out (the medical school dropout rate is 15%-18%).
Life is unpredictable. We often don’t really know what we want until we get there, and those journeys are rarely a straight line. That doesn’t mean those years were a waste, they’re just part of the trip — stepping stones to get you to the right place and realize who you really are. They also make these things possible — the experiences add to the background, and give you time and support to make the change.
She joins a group of other physicians who found their calling elsewhere, such as Graham Chapman or Michael Crichton. A nonmedical example is the renowned British astrophysicist, Sir Brian May.
I have no plans to leave medicine for another career. This fall will be 35 years since I started at Creighton Medical School, and I have no regrets. But if others have found something they enjoy more and are successful at, they have nothing to feel guilty about.
Good luck, friend.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
PCP Compensation, Part 4
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I have already shared with you that healthcare systems value panel size and productivity when they are considering primary care physician compensation. Your employers also know that the market won’t bear a substantial price increase for the procedure-poor practice style typical of primary care. You know that the relative value unit (RVU) system for calculating complexity of service is time consuming and discourages the inclusion of customer-friendly short visits that could allow an efficient provider to see more patients. Unfortunately, there is little hope that RVUs will become more PCP-friendly in the near future.
However, before leaving the topic of value and moving on to a consideration of quality, I can’t resist sharing some thoughts about efficiency and time management.
First, it must be said that the inexpert development and the clumsy rollout of electronic medical records (EMRs) have struck the biggest blow to the compensation potential and mental health of even the most efficient PCPs. Until that chasm is filled, there will be little progress in improving the efficiency and, consequently, the fair compensation of PCPs.
However, there is a myth that there is a direct correlation between the time spent with the patient and the quality of care. Eighty-five percent of PCPs report they would like to spend more time to get to know their patients. On the other hand, in my experience, really getting to know a patient is a process best done over multiple visits — some long, many of them short. It is unrealistic and inefficient to gain an in-depth understanding of the patient in a single visit.
Yes, one often hears a patient complain “they only spent 5 minutes with me.” While the patient may be technically correct, I contend that the provider’s manner has a major influence on the patient’s perception of the time spent in the exam room.
Was the provider reasonably prompt? In other words did they value my time? Did they appear rushed? Were they aware of my relevant history and prepared to deal with the current situation? In other words, did they do their homework? Did they engage me visually and seem to know what they were talking about? But, most importantly, did they exude sympathy and seem to care? Was I treated in the same manner that they would like to have been treated? If the answer is YES to those questions, then likely the patient could care less about the time spent.
It may seem counterintuitive to some of you, but there is a simple strategy that a provider can employ that will give them more time with the patient and at the same time allow them to claim to the boss that they are lowering the overhead costs. Management consultants often lean heavily on delegation as a more efficient use of resources. However, when the provider takes the patient’s vital signs and gives the injections, this multitasking provides an excellent hands-on opportunity to take the history and get to know the patient better. And, by giving the immunizations the provider is making the clearest statement possible that these vaccines are so important that they administer them personally.
You may have been wondering why I haven’t included the quality of PCP care in a discussion of compensation. It is because I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to do it in a manner that makes sense and is fair. PCPs don’t do procedures on which their success rate can be measured. A PCP’s patient panel almost by definition is going to be a mix of ages with a broad variety of complaints. Do they see enough diabetics to use their panel’s hemoglobin A1cs as a metric, or enough asthmatics to use emergency department visits as a quality-of-care measurement? In pediatrics, the closest we can come to a valid measure may be the provider’s vaccine acceptance rate.
But, then how does one factor in the general health of the community? If I open a practice in an underserved community, can you measure the quality of my care based on how quickly I can improve the metrics when I have no control over the poverty and educational system?
Since we aren’t surgeons, outcomes can’t be used to judge our quality. I’m afraid the only way we can assure quality is to demand evidence of our efforts to keep abreast of the current knowledge in our field and hope that at some level CME credits accumulated translate to the care we provide. A recent study has demonstrated an association between board certification exam board scores and newly trained internists and the care they provide. The patients of the physicians with the top scores had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital and were less likely to die in the first seven days of hospitalization.
We now may have come full circle. The fact is that, like it or not, our value to the folks that pay us lies in the number of patients we can bring into the system. To keep our overhead down, we will always be encouraged to see as many patients as we can, or at least be efficient. Even if there were a way to quantify the quality of our care using outcome metrics, the patients will continue to select their providers based on availability, and the professional and consumer-friendly behavior of those providers. The patients’ perception of how good we are at making them feel better may be our strongest argument for better compensation.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
It Would Be Nice if Olive Oil Really Did Prevent Dementia
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.
So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.
The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.
Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.
The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?
And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.
The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.
The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.
Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.
Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
Evidence More Convincing
Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.
It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.
This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.
So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
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.
As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.
So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.
The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.
Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.
The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?
And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.
The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.
The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.
Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.
Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
Evidence More Convincing
Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.
It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.
This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.
So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
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.
As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.
So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.
The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.
Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.
The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?
And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.
The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.
The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.
Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.
Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
Evidence More Convincing
Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.
It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.
This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.
So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
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.
‘Green Whistle’ Provides Pain Relief -- But Not in the US
This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).
Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.
William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.
They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.
Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.
There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.
Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action
Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.
Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?
Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.
In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.
Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.
We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.
That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.
Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?
Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.
Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.
Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?
Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.
Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”
Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.
Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.
Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?
Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.
This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”
Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”
I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.
Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.
Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.
The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.
To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.
US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice
Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.
Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.
For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.
Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns
Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.
Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.
Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.
Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.
Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.
There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.
We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.
Final Thoughts
Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?
Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.
Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.
Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).
Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.
William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.
They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.
Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.
There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.
Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action
Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.
Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?
Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.
In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.
Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.
We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.
That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.
Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?
Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.
Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.
Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?
Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.
Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”
Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.
Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.
Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?
Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.
This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”
Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”
I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.
Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.
Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.
The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.
To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.
US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice
Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.
Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.
For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.
Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns
Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.
Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.
Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.
Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.
Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.
There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.
We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.
Final Thoughts
Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?
Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.
Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.
Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on March 29, 2024. The transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Joining me today to discuss the use of methoxyflurane (Penthrox), an inhaled nonopioid analgesic for the relief of acute pain, is Dr. William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM).
Also joining me is Dr. Sergey Motov, an emergency physician and research director at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an expert in pain management. I want to welcome both of you and thank you for joining me.
RAMPED Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Glatter: Ken, your recent post on Twitter [now X] regarding the utility of Penthrox in the RAMPED trial really caught my attention. While the trial was from 2021, it really is relevant regarding the prehospital management of pain in the practice of emergency medicine, and certainly in-hospital practice. I was hoping you could review the study design but also get into the rationale behind the use of this novel agent.
William Kenneth (Ken) Milne, MD, MSc: Sure. I’d be happy to kick this episode off with talking about a study that was published in 2020 in Academic Emergency Medicine. It was an Australian study by Brichko et al., and they were doing a randomized controlled trial looking at methoxyflurane vs standard care.
They selected out a population of adults, which they defined as 18-75 years of age. They were in the prehospital setting and they had a pain score of greater than 8. They gave the participants methoxyflurane, which is also called the “green whistle.” They had the subjects take that for their prehospital pain, and they compared that with whatever your standard analgesic in the prehospital setting would be.
Their primary outcome was how many patients had at least 50% reduction in their pain score within 30 minutes. They recruited about 120 people, and they found that there was no statistical difference in the primary outcome between methoxyflurane and standard care. Again, that primary outcome was a reduction in pain score by greater than 50% at 30 minutes, and there wasn’t a statistical difference between the two.
There are obviously limits to any study, and it was a convenience sample. This was an unmasked trial, so people knew if they were getting this green whistle, which is popular in Australia. People would be familiar with this device, and they didn’t compare it with a sham or placebo group.
Pharmacology of Penthrox: Its Role and Mechanism of Action
Dr. Glatter: The primary outcome wasn’t met, but certainly secondary outcomes were. There was, again, a relatively small number of patients in this trial. That said, there was significant pain relief. I think there are issues with the trial, as with any trial limitations.
Getting to the pharmacology of Penthrox, can you describe this inhaled anesthetic and how we use it, specifically its role at the subanesthetic doses?
Sergey M. Motov, MD: Methoxyflurane is embedded in the green whistle package, and that whole contraption is called Penthrox. It’s an inhaled volatile fluorinated hydrocarbon anesthetic that was predominantly used, I’d say 40, 50 years ago, for general anesthesia and slowly but surely fell out of favor due to the fact that, when used for prolonged duration or in supratherapeutic doses, there were cases of severe or even fatal nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity.
In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, all the fluranes came on board that are slightly different as general anesthetics, and methoxyflurane started slowly falling out of favor. Because of this paucity and then a subsequent slightly greater number of cases of nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity, [the US Food and Drug Administration] FDA made a decision to pull the drug off the market in 2005. FDA successfully accomplished its mission and since then has pretty much banned the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in any shape, form, or color in the United States.
Going back to the green whistle, it has been used in Australia probably for about 50-60 years, and has been used in Europe for probably 10-20 years. Ken can attest that it has been used in Canada for at least a decade and the track record is phenomenal.
We are using subanesthetic, even supratherapeutic doses that, based on available literature, has no incidence of this fatal hepatotoxicity or nephrotoxicity. We’re talking about 10 million doses administered worldwide, except in the United States. There are 40-plus randomized clinical trials with over 30,000 patients enrolled that prove efficacy and safety.
That’s where we are right now, in a conundrum. We have a great deal of data all over the world, except in the United States, that push for the use of this noninvasive, patient-controlled nonopioid inhaled anesthetic. We just don’t have the access in North America, with the exception of Canada.
Regulatory Hurdles: Challenges in FDA Approval
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The FDA wants to be cautious, but if you look at the evidence base of data on this, it really indicates otherwise. Do you think that these roadblocks can be somehow overcome?
Dr. Milne: In the 2000s and 2010s, everybody was focused on opioids and all the dangers and potential adverse events. Opioids are great drugs like many other drugs; it depends on dose and duration. If used properly, it’s an excellent drug. Well, here’s another excellent drug if it’s used properly, and the adverse events are dependent on their dose and duration. Penthrox, or methoxyflurane, is a subtherapeutic, small dose and there have been no reported cases of addiction or abuse related to these inhalers.
Dr. Glatter: That argues for the point — and I’ll turn this over to you, Sergey — of how can this not, in my mind, be an issue that the FDA can overcome.
Dr. Motov: I agree with you. It’s very hard for me to speak on behalf of the FDA, to allude to their thinking processes, but we need to be up to speed with the evidence. The first thing is, why don’t you study the drug in the United States? I’m not asking you to lift the ban, which you put in 2005, but why don’t you honor what has been done over two decades and at least open the door a little bit and let us do what we do best? Why don’t you allow us to do the research in a controlled setting with a carefully, properly selected group of patients without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency and see where we’re at?
Let’s compare it against placebo. If that’s not ethical, let’s compare it against active comparators — God knows we have 15-20 drugs we can use — and let’s see where we’re at. Ken has been nothing short of superb when it comes to evidence. Let us put the evidence together.
Dr. Milne: If there were concerns decades ago, those need to be addressed. As science is iterative and as other information becomes available, the scientific method would say, Let’s reexamine this and let’s reexamine our position, and do that with evidence. To do that, it has to have validity within the US system. Someone like you doing the research, you are a pain research guru; you should be doing this research to say, “Does it work or not? Does this nonapproval still stand today in 2024?”
Dr. Motov: Thank you for the shout-out, and I agree with you. All of us, those who are interested, on the frontiers of emergency care — as present clinicians — we should be doing this. There is nothing that will convince the FDA more than properly and rightly conducted research, time to reassess the evidence, and time to be less rigid. I understand that you placed a ban 20 years ago, but let’s go with the science. We cannot be behind it.
Exploring the Ecological Footprint of Methoxyflurane
Dr. Milne: There was an Austrian study in 2022 and a very interesting study out of the UK looking at life-cycle impact assessment on the environment. If we’re not just concerned about patient care —obviously, we want to provide patients with a safe and effective product, compared with other products that are available that might not have as good a safety profile — this looks at the impact on the environment.
Dr. Glatter: Ken, can you tell me about some of your recent research regarding the environmental effects related to use of Penthrox, but also its utility pharmacologically and its mechanism of action?
Dr. Milne: There was a really interesting study published this year by Martindale in the Emergency Medicine Journal. It took a different approach to this question about could we be using this drug, and why should we be using this drug? Sergey and I have already talked about the potential benefits and the potential harms. I mentioned opioids and some of the concerns about that. For this drug, if we’re using it in the prehospital setting in this little green whistle, the potential benefits look really good, and we haven’t seen any of the potential harms come through in the literature.
This was another line of evidence of why this might be a good drug, because of the environmental impact of this low-dose methoxyflurane. They compared it with nitrous oxide and said, “Well, what about the life-cycle impact on the environment of using this and the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impacts?”
Obviously, Sergey and I are interested in patient care, and we treat patients one at a time. But we have a larger responsibility to social determinants of health, like our environment. If you look at the overall cradle-to-grave environmental impact of this drug, it was better than for nitrous oxide when looking specifically at climate-change impact. That might be another reason, another line of argument, that could be put forward in the United States to say, “We want to have a healthy environment and a healthy option for patients.”
I’ll let Sergey speak to mechanisms of action and those types of things.
Dr. Motov: As a general anesthetic and hydrocarbonated volatile ones, I’m just going to say that it causes this generalized diffuse cortical depression, and there are no particular channels, receptors, or enzymes we need to worry much about. In short, it’s an inhaled gas used to put patients or people to sleep.
Over the past 30 or 40 years — and I’ll go back to the past decade — there have been numerous studies in different countries (outside of the United States, of course), and with the recent study that Ken just cited, there were comparisons for managing predominantly acute traumatic injuries in pediatric and adult populations presenting to EDs in various regions of the world that compared Penthrox, or the green whistle, with either placebo or active comparators, which included parenteral opioids, oral opioids, and NSAIDs.
The recent systematic review by Fabbri, out of Italy, showed that for ultra–short-term pain — we’re talking about 5, 10, or 15 minutes — inhaled methoxyflurane was found to be equal or even superior to standard of care, primarily related to parenteral opioids, and safety was off the hook. Interestingly, with respect to analgesia, they found that geriatric patients seemed to be responding more, with respect to changing pain score, than younger adults — we’re talking about ages 18-64 vs 65 or older. Again, we need to make sure that we carefully select those elderly people without underlying renal or hepatic insufficiency.
To wrap this up, there is evidence clearly supporting its analgesic efficacy and safety, even in comparison to commonly used and traditionally accepted analgesic modalities that we use for managing acute pain.
US Military Use and Implications for Civilian Practice
Dr. Glatter: Do you think that methoxyflurane’s use in the military will help propel its use in clinical settings in the US, and possibly convince the FDA to look at this closer? The military is currently using it in deployed combat veterans in an ongoing fashion.
Dr. Motov: I’m excited that the Department of Defense in the United States has taken the lead, and they’re being very progressive. There are data that we’ve adapted to the civilian environment by use of intranasal opioids and intranasal ketamine with more doctors who came out of the military. In the military, it’s a kingdom within a kingdom. I don’t know their relationship with the FDA, but I support the military’s pharmacologic initiative by honoring and disseminating their research once it becomes available.
For us nonmilitary folks, we still need to work with the FDA. We need to convince the FDA to let us study the drug, and then we need to pile the evidence within the United States so that the FDA will start looking at this favorably. It wouldn’t hurt and it wouldn’t harm. Any piece of evidence will add to the existing body of literature that we need to allow this medication to be available to us.
Safety Considerations and Aerosolization Concerns
Dr. Glatter: Its safety in children is well established in Australia and throughout the world. I think it deserves a careful look, and the evidence that you’ve both presented argues for the use of this prehospital but also in hospital. I guess there was concern in the hospital with underventilation and healthcare workers being exposed to the fumes, and then getting headaches, dizziness, and so forth. I don’t know if that’s borne out, Ken, in any of your experience in Canada at all.
Dr. Milne: We currently don’t have it in our shop. It’s being used in British Columbia right now in the prehospital setting, and I’m not aware of anybody using it in their department. It’s used prehospital as far as I know.
Dr. Motov: I can attest to it, if I may, because I had familiarized myself with the device. I actually was able to hold it in my hands. I have not used it yet but I had the prototype. The way it’s set up, there is an activated charcoal chamber that sits right on top of the device, which serves as the scavenger for exhaled air that contains particles of methoxyflurane. In theory, but I’m telling how it is in practicality, it significantly reduces occupational exposure, based on data that lacks specifics.
Although most of the researchers did not measure the concentration of methoxyflurane in ambient air within the treatment room in the EDs, I believe the additional data sources clearly stating that it’s within or even below the detectable level that would cause any harm. Once again, we need to honor pathology. We need to make sure that pregnant women will not be exposed to it.
Dr. Milne: In 2024, we also need to be concerned about aerosolizing procedures and aerosolizing treatments, and just take that into account because we should be considering all the potential benefits and all the potential harms. Going through the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about transmission and whether or not it was droplet or aerosolized.
There was an observational study published in 2022 in Austria by Trimmel in BMC Emergency Medicine showing similar results. It seemed to work well and potential harms didn’t get picked up. They had to stop the study early because of COVID-19.
We need to always focus in on the potential benefits, the potential harms; where does the science land? Where do the data lie? Then we move forward from that and make informed decisions.
Final Thoughts
Dr. Glatter: Are there any key takeaways you’d like to share with our audience?
Dr. Milne: One of the takeaways from this whole conversation is that science is iterative and science changes. When new evidence becomes available, and we’ve seen it accumulate around the world, we as scientists, as a researcher, as somebody committed to great patient care should revisit our positions on this. Since there is a prohibition against this medication, I think it’s time to reassess that stance and move forward to see if it still is accurate today.
Dr. Motov: I wholeheartedly agree with this. Thank you, Ken, for bringing this up. Good point.
Dr. Glatter: This has been a really informative discussion. I think our audience will certainly embrace this. Thank you very much for your time; it’s much appreciated.
Dr. Glatter is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical adviser for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Dr. Milne is an emergency physician at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, and the founder of the well-known podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM). Dr. Motov is professor of emergency medicine and director of research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York. He is passionate about safe and effective pain management in the emergency department, and has numerous publications on the subject of opioid alternatives in pain management. Dr. Glatter, Dr. Milne, and Dr. Motov had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PCP Compensation, Part 2
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
In my last column, I began to explore the factors affecting the compensation of primary care providers (PCPs). I described two apparent economic paradoxes. First, while most healthcare systems consider their primary care segments as loss leaders, they continue to seek and hire more PCPs. The second is while PCPs are in short supply, most of them feel that they are underpaid. Supply and demand doesn’t seem to be making them more valuable in the economic sense. The explanations for these nonintuitive observations are first, healthcare systems need the volume of patients stored in the practices of even unprofitable primary care physicians to feed the high-profit specialties in their businesses. Second, there is a limit to how large a gap between revenue and overhead the systems can accept for their primary care practices. Not surprisingly, this means that system administrators must continue to nudge those PCP practices closer toward profitability, usually by demanding higher productivity.
As I did in my last letter, I will continue to lean on a discussion for PCP compensation by a large international management consulting firm I found on the internet. I am not condoning the consultant’s advice, but merely using it as a scaffolding on which to hang the rather squishy topics of time, clinical quality, and patient satisfaction. I only intend to ask questions, and I promise no answers.
First, let me make it clear that I am defining PCPs as providers who are on a performance-based pathway, which is by far the most prevalent model. A fixed-salary arrangement hasn’t made sense to me since I was a 17-year-old lifeguard paid by the hour for sitting by a pool. Had I been paid by the rescue, I would have finished the summer empty handed. A fixed salary provided me a sense of security, but it offered no path for advancement and was boring as hell. The primary care provider I am talking about has an interest in developing relationships with his/her patients, building a practice, and offering some degree of continuity. In other words, I am not considering providers working in walk-in clinics as PCPs.
Size Matters
My high-powered management consultant is recommending to his healthcare system management clients that they emphasize panel size component as they craft their compensation packages for PCPs. Maybe even to the point of giving it more weight than the productivity piece. This, of course, makes perfect business sense if the primary value of a PCP to the system lies in the patients he/she brings into the system.
What does this emphasis on size mean for you as a provider? If your boss is following my consultant’s advice, then you would want to be growing your panel size to improve your compensation. You could do this by a marketing plan that makes you more popular. But, I can hear you muttering that you never wanted to be a contestant in a popularity contest. Although I must say that historically this was a fact of life in any community when new providers came to town.
A provider can choose his/her own definition of popularity. You can let it be known that you are a liberal prescription writer and fill your practice with drug-seeking patients. Or you could promote customer-friendly schedules and behaviors in your office staff. And, of course, you can simply exude an aura of caring, which has always been an effective practice-building tool.
On the other hand, you may believe that you have more patients than you can handle. You may fear that growing your practice runs the risk of putting the quality of your patients’ care and your own physical and mental health at risk.
Theoretically, you could keep your panel size unchanged and increase your productivity to enhance your value and therefore your compensation. In the next part of this miniseries we’ll look at the stumbling blocks that can make increasing productivity difficult.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Intermittent Fasting + HIIT: Fitness Fad or Fix?
Let’s be honest: Although as physicians we have the power of the prescription pad, so much of health, in the end, comes down to lifestyle. Of course, taking a pill is often way easier than changing your longstanding habits. And what’s worse, doesn’t it always seem like the lifestyle stuff that is good for your health is unpleasant?
Two recent lifestyle interventions that I have tried and find really not enjoyable are time-restricted eating (also known as intermittent fasting) and high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. The former leaves me hangry for half the day; the latter is, well, it’s just really hard compared with my usual jog.
But given the rule of unpleasant lifestyle changes, I knew as soon as I saw this recent study what the result would be. What if we combined time-restricted eating with high-intensity interval training?
I’m referring to this study, appearing in PLOS ONE from Ranya Ameur and colleagues, which is a small trial that enrolled otherwise healthy women with a BMI > 30 and randomized them to one of three conditions.
First was time-restricted eating. Women in this group could eat whatever they wanted, but only from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.
Second: high-intensity functional training. This is a variant of high-intensity interval training which focuses a bit more on resistance exercise than on pure cardiovascular stuff but has the same vibe of doing brief bursts of intensive activity followed by a cool-down period.
Third: a combination of the two. Sounds rough to me.
The study was otherwise straightforward. At baseline, researchers collected data on body composition and dietary intake, and measured blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and lipid biomarkers. A 12-week intervention period followed, after which all of this stuff was measured again.
Now, you may have noticed that there is no control group in this study. We’ll come back to that — a few times.
Let me walk you through some of the outcomes here.
First off, body composition metrics. All three groups lost weight — on average, around 10% of body weight which, for a 12-week intervention, is fairly impressive. BMI and waist circumference went down as well, and, interestingly, much of the weight loss here was in fat mass, not fat-free mass.
Most interventions that lead to weight loss — and I’m including some of the newer drugs here — lead to both fat and muscle loss. That might not be as bad as it sounds; the truth is that muscle mass increases as fat increases because of the simple fact that if you’re carrying more weight when you walk around, your leg muscles get bigger. But to preserve muscle mass in the face of fat loss is sort of a Goldilocks finding, and, based on these results, there’s a suggestion that the high-intensity functional training helps to do just that.
The dietary intake findings were really surprising to me. Across the board, caloric intake decreased. It’s no surprise that time-restricted eating reduces calorie intake. That has been shown many times before and is probably the main reason it induces weight loss — less time to eat means you eat less.
But why would high-intensity functional training lead to lower caloric intake? Most people, myself included, get hungry after they exercise. In fact, one of the reasons it’s hard to lose weight with exercise alone is that we end up eating more calories to make up for what we lost during the exercise. This calorie reduction could be a unique effect of this type of exercise, but honestly this could also be something called the Hawthorne effect. Women in the study kept a food diary to track their intake, and the act of doing that might actually make you eat less. It makes it a little more annoying to snack a bit if you know you have to write it down. This is a situation where I would kill for a control group.
The lipid findings are also pretty striking, with around a 40% reduction in LDL across the board, and evidence of synergistic effects of combined TRE and high-intensity training on total cholesterol and triglycerides. This is like a statin level of effect — pretty impressive. Again, my heart pines for a control group, though.
Same story with glucose and insulin measures: an impressive reduction in fasting glucose and good evidence that the combination of time-restricted eating and high-intensity functional training reduces insulin levels and HOMA-IR as well.
Really the only thing that wasn’t very impressive was the change in blood pressure, with only modest decreases across the board.
Okay, so let’s take a breath after this high-intensity cerebral workout and put this all together. This was a small study, lacking a control group, but with large effect sizes in very relevant clinical areas. It confirms what we know about time-restricted eating — that it makes you eat less calories — and introduces the potential that vigorous exercise can not only magnify the benefits of time-restricted eating but maybe even mitigate some of the risks, like the risk for muscle loss. And of course, it comports with my central hypothesis, which is that the more unpleasant a lifestyle intervention is, the better it is for you. No pain, no gain, right?
Of course, I am being overly dogmatic. There are plenty of caveats. Wrestling bears is quite unpleasant and almost certainly bad for you. And there are even some pleasant things that are pretty good for you — like coffee and sex. And there are even people who find time-restricted eating and high-intensity training pleasurable. They are called masochists.
I’m joking. The truth is that Or, at least, much less painful. The trick is getting over the hump of change. If only there were a pill for that.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Let’s be honest: Although as physicians we have the power of the prescription pad, so much of health, in the end, comes down to lifestyle. Of course, taking a pill is often way easier than changing your longstanding habits. And what’s worse, doesn’t it always seem like the lifestyle stuff that is good for your health is unpleasant?
Two recent lifestyle interventions that I have tried and find really not enjoyable are time-restricted eating (also known as intermittent fasting) and high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. The former leaves me hangry for half the day; the latter is, well, it’s just really hard compared with my usual jog.
But given the rule of unpleasant lifestyle changes, I knew as soon as I saw this recent study what the result would be. What if we combined time-restricted eating with high-intensity interval training?
I’m referring to this study, appearing in PLOS ONE from Ranya Ameur and colleagues, which is a small trial that enrolled otherwise healthy women with a BMI > 30 and randomized them to one of three conditions.
First was time-restricted eating. Women in this group could eat whatever they wanted, but only from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.
Second: high-intensity functional training. This is a variant of high-intensity interval training which focuses a bit more on resistance exercise than on pure cardiovascular stuff but has the same vibe of doing brief bursts of intensive activity followed by a cool-down period.
Third: a combination of the two. Sounds rough to me.
The study was otherwise straightforward. At baseline, researchers collected data on body composition and dietary intake, and measured blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and lipid biomarkers. A 12-week intervention period followed, after which all of this stuff was measured again.
Now, you may have noticed that there is no control group in this study. We’ll come back to that — a few times.
Let me walk you through some of the outcomes here.
First off, body composition metrics. All three groups lost weight — on average, around 10% of body weight which, for a 12-week intervention, is fairly impressive. BMI and waist circumference went down as well, and, interestingly, much of the weight loss here was in fat mass, not fat-free mass.
Most interventions that lead to weight loss — and I’m including some of the newer drugs here — lead to both fat and muscle loss. That might not be as bad as it sounds; the truth is that muscle mass increases as fat increases because of the simple fact that if you’re carrying more weight when you walk around, your leg muscles get bigger. But to preserve muscle mass in the face of fat loss is sort of a Goldilocks finding, and, based on these results, there’s a suggestion that the high-intensity functional training helps to do just that.
The dietary intake findings were really surprising to me. Across the board, caloric intake decreased. It’s no surprise that time-restricted eating reduces calorie intake. That has been shown many times before and is probably the main reason it induces weight loss — less time to eat means you eat less.
But why would high-intensity functional training lead to lower caloric intake? Most people, myself included, get hungry after they exercise. In fact, one of the reasons it’s hard to lose weight with exercise alone is that we end up eating more calories to make up for what we lost during the exercise. This calorie reduction could be a unique effect of this type of exercise, but honestly this could also be something called the Hawthorne effect. Women in the study kept a food diary to track their intake, and the act of doing that might actually make you eat less. It makes it a little more annoying to snack a bit if you know you have to write it down. This is a situation where I would kill for a control group.
The lipid findings are also pretty striking, with around a 40% reduction in LDL across the board, and evidence of synergistic effects of combined TRE and high-intensity training on total cholesterol and triglycerides. This is like a statin level of effect — pretty impressive. Again, my heart pines for a control group, though.
Same story with glucose and insulin measures: an impressive reduction in fasting glucose and good evidence that the combination of time-restricted eating and high-intensity functional training reduces insulin levels and HOMA-IR as well.
Really the only thing that wasn’t very impressive was the change in blood pressure, with only modest decreases across the board.
Okay, so let’s take a breath after this high-intensity cerebral workout and put this all together. This was a small study, lacking a control group, but with large effect sizes in very relevant clinical areas. It confirms what we know about time-restricted eating — that it makes you eat less calories — and introduces the potential that vigorous exercise can not only magnify the benefits of time-restricted eating but maybe even mitigate some of the risks, like the risk for muscle loss. And of course, it comports with my central hypothesis, which is that the more unpleasant a lifestyle intervention is, the better it is for you. No pain, no gain, right?
Of course, I am being overly dogmatic. There are plenty of caveats. Wrestling bears is quite unpleasant and almost certainly bad for you. And there are even some pleasant things that are pretty good for you — like coffee and sex. And there are even people who find time-restricted eating and high-intensity training pleasurable. They are called masochists.
I’m joking. The truth is that Or, at least, much less painful. The trick is getting over the hump of change. If only there were a pill for that.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Let’s be honest: Although as physicians we have the power of the prescription pad, so much of health, in the end, comes down to lifestyle. Of course, taking a pill is often way easier than changing your longstanding habits. And what’s worse, doesn’t it always seem like the lifestyle stuff that is good for your health is unpleasant?
Two recent lifestyle interventions that I have tried and find really not enjoyable are time-restricted eating (also known as intermittent fasting) and high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. The former leaves me hangry for half the day; the latter is, well, it’s just really hard compared with my usual jog.
But given the rule of unpleasant lifestyle changes, I knew as soon as I saw this recent study what the result would be. What if we combined time-restricted eating with high-intensity interval training?
I’m referring to this study, appearing in PLOS ONE from Ranya Ameur and colleagues, which is a small trial that enrolled otherwise healthy women with a BMI > 30 and randomized them to one of three conditions.
First was time-restricted eating. Women in this group could eat whatever they wanted, but only from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.
Second: high-intensity functional training. This is a variant of high-intensity interval training which focuses a bit more on resistance exercise than on pure cardiovascular stuff but has the same vibe of doing brief bursts of intensive activity followed by a cool-down period.
Third: a combination of the two. Sounds rough to me.
The study was otherwise straightforward. At baseline, researchers collected data on body composition and dietary intake, and measured blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and lipid biomarkers. A 12-week intervention period followed, after which all of this stuff was measured again.
Now, you may have noticed that there is no control group in this study. We’ll come back to that — a few times.
Let me walk you through some of the outcomes here.
First off, body composition metrics. All three groups lost weight — on average, around 10% of body weight which, for a 12-week intervention, is fairly impressive. BMI and waist circumference went down as well, and, interestingly, much of the weight loss here was in fat mass, not fat-free mass.
Most interventions that lead to weight loss — and I’m including some of the newer drugs here — lead to both fat and muscle loss. That might not be as bad as it sounds; the truth is that muscle mass increases as fat increases because of the simple fact that if you’re carrying more weight when you walk around, your leg muscles get bigger. But to preserve muscle mass in the face of fat loss is sort of a Goldilocks finding, and, based on these results, there’s a suggestion that the high-intensity functional training helps to do just that.
The dietary intake findings were really surprising to me. Across the board, caloric intake decreased. It’s no surprise that time-restricted eating reduces calorie intake. That has been shown many times before and is probably the main reason it induces weight loss — less time to eat means you eat less.
But why would high-intensity functional training lead to lower caloric intake? Most people, myself included, get hungry after they exercise. In fact, one of the reasons it’s hard to lose weight with exercise alone is that we end up eating more calories to make up for what we lost during the exercise. This calorie reduction could be a unique effect of this type of exercise, but honestly this could also be something called the Hawthorne effect. Women in the study kept a food diary to track their intake, and the act of doing that might actually make you eat less. It makes it a little more annoying to snack a bit if you know you have to write it down. This is a situation where I would kill for a control group.
The lipid findings are also pretty striking, with around a 40% reduction in LDL across the board, and evidence of synergistic effects of combined TRE and high-intensity training on total cholesterol and triglycerides. This is like a statin level of effect — pretty impressive. Again, my heart pines for a control group, though.
Same story with glucose and insulin measures: an impressive reduction in fasting glucose and good evidence that the combination of time-restricted eating and high-intensity functional training reduces insulin levels and HOMA-IR as well.
Really the only thing that wasn’t very impressive was the change in blood pressure, with only modest decreases across the board.
Okay, so let’s take a breath after this high-intensity cerebral workout and put this all together. This was a small study, lacking a control group, but with large effect sizes in very relevant clinical areas. It confirms what we know about time-restricted eating — that it makes you eat less calories — and introduces the potential that vigorous exercise can not only magnify the benefits of time-restricted eating but maybe even mitigate some of the risks, like the risk for muscle loss. And of course, it comports with my central hypothesis, which is that the more unpleasant a lifestyle intervention is, the better it is for you. No pain, no gain, right?
Of course, I am being overly dogmatic. There are plenty of caveats. Wrestling bears is quite unpleasant and almost certainly bad for you. And there are even some pleasant things that are pretty good for you — like coffee and sex. And there are even people who find time-restricted eating and high-intensity training pleasurable. They are called masochists.
I’m joking. The truth is that Or, at least, much less painful. The trick is getting over the hump of change. If only there were a pill for that.
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.