Perspectives

It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.

In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question: How can practitioners help offset side effects through dietary changes, and while we are at it, what other dietary advice is prudent at treatment onset?

Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.

Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.

The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.

To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.

Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.

*The patient’s name has been changed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.

In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question: How can practitioners help offset side effects through dietary changes, and while we are at it, what other dietary advice is prudent at treatment onset?

Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.

Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.

The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.

To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.

Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.

*The patient’s name has been changed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s 2 a.m. and my phone wakes me up with a start. My patient, Christine Z*, is vomiting uncontrollably, and Dr Google has diagnosed her with acute pancreatitis from semaglutide (Wegovy). Ten hours, several imaging studies, one blood draw, and many bags of fluids later, the verdict is in: Christine is alarmingly constipated. In fact, her entire large intestine is packed to the brim with stool. In residency, we called this diagnosis FOS, and I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out what it stands for.

In retrospect, Christine mentions that upon raising her Wegovy dose, her bowel movements had become increasingly smaller and infrequent. This begs the question: How can practitioners help offset side effects through dietary changes, and while we are at it, what other dietary advice is prudent at treatment onset?

Proper nutrition always starts with drinking copious amounts of water. In general, I recommend a minimum of 64 ounces of water daily in patients taking incretins such as semaglutide (Wegovy for weight loss, Ozempic and Rybelsus for type 2 diabetes) or tirzepatide (Zepbound for weight loss, Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes). While these medications don’t directly dehydrate patients, they can increase the risk for dehydration due to severe nausea. Drinking copious amounts of water can prevent dehydration, preserve kidney function, and minimize fatigue and dizziness. In addition, fluids help soften bowel movements, making them easier to pass.

Occasionally incretins make it so easy for patients to drop pounds that their eating patterns become sloppier — more sweets and simple carbohydrates. I recommend a realistic and low glycemic index meal plan. While no foods are strictly contraindicated, processed, high-sugar, and fatty foods are likely to worsen side effects like nausea and gastrointestinal distress. Similarly, alcohol not only worsens nausea, but it’s also likely to exacerbate reflux by relaxing the sphincter that separates the stomach from the esophagus.

The next most important dietary advice is consuming sufficient fiber. In the majority of patients, increasing fiber intake relieves constipation. There are two types of fiber: soluble and insoluble. In practical terms, most fiber-rich foods contain a mixture of these two types. The general recommendation is 38 g/d for men and 25 g/d for women. The caveat to this advice is that a minority of patients, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome, may develop worsening constipation with increasing fiber.

To minimize side effects, some patients find it useful to eat five small meals throughout the day rather than three larger meals. In addition, I recommend eating slowly and stopping before the point of satiety. Finally, because weight loss of any kind is inevitably associated with muscle loss, I stress the importance of adequate protein. In general, I advise 25-30 g of protein per meal.

Christine eventually restarted her Wegovy after recovering from her grueling night in the emergency room. As this was her second go-around on Wegovy, she dug out my “guide to preventing side effects of incretins” and followed it to a T. So far, she’s feeling great.

*The patient’s name has been changed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been spending time recently reflecting on the biggest developments from last year. I have to say that the breakthrough of the year, based on the amount of data presented and the importance of the data, is chemotherapy. I never thought I would say that. Many folks have tried to relegate chemotherapy to the museum, but last year it came to the forefront.

Let’s start with neoadjuvant therapy. We now have multiple drug approvals for giving a checkpoint inhibitor and neoadjuvant therapy in what I would say is a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced lung cancers who are candidates for surgery. In all those trials, there was a clear improvement in progression-free survival by adding a checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy. The cornerstone of this regimen is chemotherapy.

What about adjuvant therapy? I think one of the most astounding pieces of data last year was in the adjuvant realm. In the trial comparing adjuvant osimertinib with placebo in patients with EGFR-mutant disease, patients who received chemotherapy in addition to osimertinib had a 7% improvement in 5-year survival. Patients who had placebo, who got chemotherapy vs didn’t, had a 9% improvement in 5-year survival. Those are huge numbers for that kind of metric, and it happened with chemotherapy.

What about targeted therapies? Again, I think people were astounded that, by adding chemotherapy to osimertinib compared with osimertinib alone, there was a 9-month improvement overall in progression-free survival. I think in the presentation of the data that has been made, the most remarkable piece of data is that, in patients with brain metastases, chemotherapy on top of osimertinib improved progression-free survival. Not only did it improve progression-free survival, but it did it with brain metastases, where people think it just doesn’t help at all.

What about other, newer agents with chemotherapy? Amivantamab, I would say, has hitched itself to chemotherapy. A trial in EGFR exon 20 compared chemo to amivantamab plus chemotherapy. There again, chemo is the common denominator. Amivantamab added approximately 5 months of improved progression-free survival. Again, chemo was used. In adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and targeted therapies, chemotherapy adds.

What about the second line? I think everybody was very disappointed when second-line sotorasib gave a very tiny amount of progression-free survival improvement over docetaxel. I think we all want more for our patients than we can deliver with docetaxel. The roughly 5-week improvement seen with sotorasib was one that raised a question about the place of sotorasib in this setting.

Clearly, we’ve all seen patients have an excellent result with sotorasib as an additional option for treating patients with long progression-free survival, high rates of response, and good tolerability even at the 960 mg dose. But in the randomized trial, it wasn’t better than docetaxel. Again, I think we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine in that it could not beat docetaxel either. I think the idea here is that chemo still has a huge place and still remains the treatment that we have to beat.

We’re all very excited about the antibody-drug conjugates and I think everybody sees them as another advance. Many folks have said that they are just a more precise way of delivering chemotherapy, and when you look at the side effects, it supports that — they’re largely side effects of chemotherapy with these drugs across the board. Also, when you look at the patterns of resistance, the resistance really isn’t a resistance to the targeted therapy; it’s a resistance to chemotherapy more than anything else.

So we’re happy that the antibody-drug conjugates are available and we were disappointed with tusamitamab ravtansine because we thought that it could beat docetaxel. But in truth, it didn’t, and unfortunately, that pivotal trial led to the end of the entire development program for that agent, as stated in a press release.

The molecule or treatment of the year is chemotherapy — added to targeted therapies, used with immunotherapy, and now attached to antibodies as part of antibody-drug conjugates. I think it remains, more than any one treatment, a very effective treatment for patients and deserves to be used.

There are a lot of choices here. I think you have to be very careful to choose wisely, and you also have to be careful because chemotherapy has side effects. The nice thing is that many of those side effects can be ameliorated. We have to make sure that we use all the supportive medications we can.

Who would have thought that chemotherapy would be the treatment of the year in 2023 for lung cancers?
 

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and PUMA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has lagged in health care but has considerable potential to improve quality, safety, clinician experience, and access to care. It is being tested in areas like billing, hospital operations, and preventing adverse events (eg, sepsis mortality) with some early success. However, there are still many barriers preventing the widespread use of AI, such as data problems, mismatched rewards, and workplace obstacles. Innovative projects, partnerships, better rewards, and more investment could remove barriers. Implemented reliably and safely, AI can add to what clinicians know, help them work faster, cut costs, and, most importantly, improve patient care.¹

AI can potentially bring several clinical benefits, such as reducing the administrative strain on clinicians and granting them more time for direct patient care. It can also improve diagnostic accuracy by analyzing patient data and diagnostic images, providing differential diagnoses, and increasing access to care by providing medical information and essential online services to patients.²

High Reliability Organizations

High reliability health care organizations have considerable experience safely launching new programs. For example, the Patient Safety Adoption Framework gives practical tips for smoothly rolling out safety initiatives (Table 1). Developed with experts and diverse views, this framework has 5 key areas: leadership, culture and context, process, measurement, and person-centeredness. These address adoption problems, guide leaders step-by-step, and focus on leadership buy-in, safety culture, cooperation, and local customization. Checklists and tools make it systematic to go from ideas to action on patient safety.³

Leadership involves establishing organizational commitment behind new safety programs. This visible commitment signals importance and priorities to others. Leaders model desired behaviors and language around safety, allocate resources, remove obstacles, and keep initiatives energized over time through consistent messaging.⁴ Culture and context recognizes that safety culture differs across units and facilities. Local input tailors programs to fit and examines strengths to build on, like psychological safety. Surveys gauge the existing culture and its need for change. Process details how to plan, design, test, implement, and improve new safety practices and provides a phased roadmap from idea to results. Measurement collects data to drive improvement and show impact. Metrics track progress and allow benchmarking. Person-centeredness puts patients first in safety efforts through participation, education, and transparency.

The Veterans Health Administration piloted a comprehensive high reliability hospital (HRH) model. Over 3 years, the Veterans Health Administration focused on leadership, culture, and process improvement at a hospital. After initiating the model, the pilot hospital improved its safety culture, reported more minor safety issues, and reduced deaths and complications better than other hospitals. The high-reliability approach successfully instilled principles and improved culture and outcomes. The HRH model is set to be expanded to 18 more US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites for further evaluation across diverse settings.⁵

Trustworthy AI Framework

AI systems are growing more powerful and widespread, including in health care. Unfortunately, irresponsible AI can introduce new harm. ChatGPT and other large language models, for example, sometimes are known to provide erroneous information in a compelling way. Clinicians and patients who use such programs can act on such information, which would lead to unforeseen negative consequences. Several frameworks on ethical AI have come from governmental groups.^6-9 In 2023, the VA National AI Institute suggested a Trustworthy AI Framework based on core principles tailored for federal health care. The framework has 6 key principles: purposeful, effective and safe, secure and private, fair and equitable, transparent and explainable, and accountable and monitored (Table 2).¹⁰

First, AI must clearly help veterans while minimizing risks. To ensure purpose, the VA will assess patient and clinician needs and design AI that targets meaningful problems to avoid scope creep or feature bloat. For example, adding new features to the AI software after release can clutter and complicate the interface, making it difficult to use. Rigorous testing will confirm that AI meets intent prior to deployment. Second, AI is designed and checked for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. The VA pledges to monitor AI’s impact to ensure it performs as expected without unintended consequences. Algorithms will be stress tested across representative datasets and approval processes will screen for safety issues. Third, AI models are secured from vulnerabilities and misuse. Technical controls will prevent unauthorized access or changes to AI systems. Audits will check for appropriate internal usage per policies. Continual patches and upgrades will maintain security. Fourth, the VA manages AI for fairness, avoiding bias. They will proactively assess datasets and algorithms for potential biases based on protected attributes like race, gender, or age. Biased outputs will be addressed through techniques such as data augmentation, reweighting, and algorithm tweaks. Fifth, transparency explains AI’s role in care. Documentation will detail an AI system’s data sources, methodology, testing, limitations, and integration with clinical workflows. Clinicians and patients will receive education on interpreting AI outputs. Finally, the VA pledges to closely monitor AI systems to sustain trust. The VA will establish oversight processes to quickly identify any declines in reliability or unfair impacts on subgroups. AI models will be retrained as needed based on incoming data patterns.

Each Trustworthy AI Framework principle connects to others in existing frameworks. The purpose principle aligns with human-centric AI focused on benefits. Effectiveness and safety link to technical robustness and risk management principles. Security maps to privacy protection principles. Fairness connects to principles of avoiding bias and discrimination. Transparency corresponds with accountable and explainable AI. Monitoring and accountability tie back to governance principles. Overall, the VA framework aims to guide ethical AI based on context. It offers a model for managing risks and building trust in health care AI.

Combining VA principles with high-reliability safety principles can ensure that AI benefits veterans. The leadership and culture aspects will drive commitment to trustworthy AI practices. Leaders will communicate the importance of responsible AI through words and actions. Culture surveys can assess baseline awareness of AI ethics issues to target education. AI security and fairness will be emphasized as safety critical. The process aspect will institute policies and procedures to uphold AI principles through the project lifecycle. For example, structured testing processes will validate safety. Measurement will collect data on principles like transparency and fairness. Dashboards can track metrics like explainability and biases. A patient-centered approach will incorporate veteran perspectives on AI through participatory design and advisory councils. They can give input on AI explainability and potential biases based on their diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

Joint principles will lead to successful AI that improves care while proactively managing risks. Involve leaders to stress the necessity of eliminating biases. Build security into the AI development process. Co-design AI transparency features with end users. Closely monitor the impact of AI across safety, fairness, and other principles. Adhering to both Trustworthy AI and high reliability organizations principles will earn veterans’ confidence. Health care organizations like the VA can integrate ethical AI safely via established frameworks. With responsible design and implementation, AI’s potential to enhance care quality, safety, and access can be realized.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Joshua Mueller, Theo Tiffney, John Zachary, and Gil Alterovitz for their excellent work creating the VA Trustworthy Principles. This material is the result of work supported by resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of dueling editorials in the journal Hypertension debate whether our focus should be on sodium or its often neglected partner, potassium.

Should we cut sodium from our diet or eat more potassium to lower blood pressure? The answer requires an intricate understanding of renal physiology that is fascinating. To nephrologists. A meta-analysis of 85 trials showed a consistent and linear. It may also depend on where you live and whether your concern is treating individuals or implementing effective food policy.

The Case for Sodium Restriction

Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, co-author of one editorial, told me in a zoom interview that he believes his side of the debate clearly has the stronger argument. Of the two cations in question, there has been infinitely more ink spilled about sodium.

Studies such as INTERSALT, the DASH diet, and TOHP may be the most well-known, but there are many, many intervention studies of sodium restriction’s effect on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of 85 trials of showed a consistent and linear relationship between sodium reduction and blood pressure. In contrast, the evidence base for potassium is more limited and less consistent. There are half as many trials with potassium, and its ability to lower blood pressure may depend on how much sodium is present in the diet.

An outlier in the sodium restriction evidence base is the PURE study, which suggested that extreme sodium restriction could increase cardiovascular mortality, but the trial suffered from two potential issues. First, it used a single spot urine specimen to measure sodium rather than the generally accepted more accurate 24-hour urine collection. A reanalysis of the TOHP study using a spot urine rather than a 24-hour urine collection changed the relationship between sodium intake and mortality and possibly explained the U-shaped association observed in PURE. Second, PURE was an observational cohort and was prone to confounding, or in this case, reverse causation. Why did people who consumed very little salt have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease? It is very possible that people with a high risk for cardiovascular disease were told to consume less salt to begin with. Hence B led to A rather than A leading to B.

The debate on sodium restriction has been bitter at times. Opposing camps formed, and people took sides in the “salt wars.” A group of researchers, termed the Jackson 6, met and decided to end the controversy by running a randomized trial in US prisons (having discounted the options of long-term care homes and military bases). They detailed their plan in an editorial in Hypertension. The study never came to fruition for two reasons: the obvious ethical problems of experimenting on prisoners and the revelation of undisclosed salt industry funding.

More recent studies have mercifully been more conventional. The SSaSS study, a randomized controlled trial of a salt substitute, provided the cardiovascular outcomes data that many were waiting for. And CARDIA-SSBP, a cross-over randomized trial recently presented at the American Heart Association meeting, showed that reducing dietary sodium was on par with medication when it came to lowering blood pressure.

For Dr. Juraschek, the evidence is clear: “If you were going to choose one, I would say the weight of the evidence is still really heavily on the sodium side.”

The Case for Potassium Supplementation

The evidence for salt restriction notwithstanding, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, MPH, from the University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, argued in his editorial that potassium supplementation has gotten short shrift. Though he admits the studies for potassium supplementation have been smaller and sometimes rely on observational evidence, the evidence is there. In the distal convoluted tubule, the sodium chloride cotransporter (NCC), aka the potassium switch, is turned on by low potassium levels and leads to sodium reabsorption by the kidney even in settings of high sodium intake (Figure). To nonnephrologists, renal physiology may be a black box. But if you quickly brush up on the mechanism of action of thiazide diuretics, the preceding descriptor will make more sense.

Medscape

Realistic Diets and Taste Issues

“We know that increasing potassium, decreasing sodium is useful. The question is how do we do that?” says Dr. Hiremath. Should we encourage fruit and vegetable consumption in a healthy diet, give potassium supplements, or encourage the use of low-sodium salt substitutes?

Recommending a healthier diet with more fruits and vegetables is a no-brainer. But getting people to do it is hard. In a world where fruit is more expensive than junk food is, economic realities may drive food choice regardless of our best efforts. The 4700 mg of potassium in the DASH eating plan is the equivalent of eleven bananas daily; although not impossible, it would require a substantive shift in eating patterns for most people.

Given that we prescribe iron, vitamin B12, calcium, and vitamin D to patients who need them, why not potassium tablets to help with blood pressure? Granted, there are concerns about inducing hyperkalemia. Also, why not just prescribe a proven anti-hypertensive, such as ramipril, which has the added benefit of helping with renal protection or cardiac remodeling? Dr. Hiremath points out that patients are far less reluctant to take dietary supplements. Medication is something you take when sick. A supplement is seen as “natural” and “healthy” and might be more attractive to people resistant to prescription meds.

Another drawback of oral potassium supplementation is taste. In a Consumer Reports taste test, potassium chloride fared poorly. It was bitter and had a metallic aftertaste. At least one tester wouldn’t ever consume it again. Potassium citrate is slightly more palpable.

Salt substitutes, like the 75:25 ratio of sodium to potassium used in SSaSS, may be as high as you can go for potassium in any low-sodium salt alternative. If you go any higher than that, the taste will just turn people off, suggests Dr. Hiremath.

But SsaSS, which was done in China, may not be relevant to North America. In China, most sodium is added during cooking at home, and the consumption of processed foods is low. For the typical North American, roughly three quarters of the sodium eaten is added to their food by someone else; only about 15% is added during cooking at home or at the dinner table. If you aren’t someone who cooks, buying a salt substitute is probably not going to have much impact.

Given that reality, Dr. Juraschek thinks we need to target the sodium in processed foods. “There’s just so much sodium in so many products,” he says. “When you think about public policy, it’s most expeditious for there to be more regulation about how much is added to our food supply vs trying to get people to consume eight to 12 servings of fruit.”

No Salt War Here

Despite their different editorial takes, Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek largely agree on the broad strokes of the problem. This isn’t X (or Twitter) after all. Potassium supplementation may be useful in some parts of the world but may not address the underlying problem in countries where processed foods are the source of most dietary sodium.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial showed that a very low–sodium diet had the same blood pressure–lowering effect as a first-line antihypertensive, but most people will not be able to limit themselves to 500 mg of dietary sodium per day. In CARDIA-SSBP, just as in DASH, participants were provided with meals from study kitchens. They were not just told to eat less salt, which would almost certainly have failed.

“We should aim for stuff that is practical and doable rather than aim for stuff that cannot be done,” according to Dr. Hiremath. Whether that should be salt substitutes or policy change may depend on which part of the planet you live on.

One recent positive change may herald the beginning of a policy change, at least in the United States. In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule change to allow salt substitutes to be labeled as salt. This would make it easier for food manufacturers to swap out sodium chloride for a low-sodium alternative and reduce the amount of sodium in the US diet without having a large impact on taste and consumer uptake. Both Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek agree that it may not be enough on its own but that it’s a start.

Christopher Labos is a cardiologist with a degree in epidemiology. He spends most of his time doing things that he doesn’t get paid for, like research, teaching, and podcasting. Occasionally, he finds time to practice cardiology to pay the rent. He realizes that half of his research findings will be disproved in 5 years; he just doesn’t know which half. He is a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette, CJAD radio, and CTV television in Montreal, and is host of the award-winning podcast The Body of Evidence.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of dueling editorials in the journal Hypertension debate whether our focus should be on sodium or its often neglected partner, potassium.

Should we cut sodium from our diet or eat more potassium to lower blood pressure? The answer requires an intricate understanding of renal physiology that is fascinating. To nephrologists. A meta-analysis of 85 trials showed a consistent and linear. It may also depend on where you live and whether your concern is treating individuals or implementing effective food policy.

The Case for Sodium Restriction

Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, co-author of one editorial, told me in a zoom interview that he believes his side of the debate clearly has the stronger argument. Of the two cations in question, there has been infinitely more ink spilled about sodium.

Studies such as INTERSALT, the DASH diet, and TOHP may be the most well-known, but there are many, many intervention studies of sodium restriction’s effect on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of 85 trials of showed a consistent and linear relationship between sodium reduction and blood pressure. In contrast, the evidence base for potassium is more limited and less consistent. There are half as many trials with potassium, and its ability to lower blood pressure may depend on how much sodium is present in the diet.

An outlier in the sodium restriction evidence base is the PURE study, which suggested that extreme sodium restriction could increase cardiovascular mortality, but the trial suffered from two potential issues. First, it used a single spot urine specimen to measure sodium rather than the generally accepted more accurate 24-hour urine collection. A reanalysis of the TOHP study using a spot urine rather than a 24-hour urine collection changed the relationship between sodium intake and mortality and possibly explained the U-shaped association observed in PURE. Second, PURE was an observational cohort and was prone to confounding, or in this case, reverse causation. Why did people who consumed very little salt have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease? It is very possible that people with a high risk for cardiovascular disease were told to consume less salt to begin with. Hence B led to A rather than A leading to B.

The debate on sodium restriction has been bitter at times. Opposing camps formed, and people took sides in the “salt wars.” A group of researchers, termed the Jackson 6, met and decided to end the controversy by running a randomized trial in US prisons (having discounted the options of long-term care homes and military bases). They detailed their plan in an editorial in Hypertension. The study never came to fruition for two reasons: the obvious ethical problems of experimenting on prisoners and the revelation of undisclosed salt industry funding.

More recent studies have mercifully been more conventional. The SSaSS study, a randomized controlled trial of a salt substitute, provided the cardiovascular outcomes data that many were waiting for. And CARDIA-SSBP, a cross-over randomized trial recently presented at the American Heart Association meeting, showed that reducing dietary sodium was on par with medication when it came to lowering blood pressure.

For Dr. Juraschek, the evidence is clear: “If you were going to choose one, I would say the weight of the evidence is still really heavily on the sodium side.”

The Case for Potassium Supplementation

The evidence for salt restriction notwithstanding, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, MPH, from the University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, argued in his editorial that potassium supplementation has gotten short shrift. Though he admits the studies for potassium supplementation have been smaller and sometimes rely on observational evidence, the evidence is there. In the distal convoluted tubule, the sodium chloride cotransporter (NCC), aka the potassium switch, is turned on by low potassium levels and leads to sodium reabsorption by the kidney even in settings of high sodium intake (Figure). To nonnephrologists, renal physiology may be a black box. But if you quickly brush up on the mechanism of action of thiazide diuretics, the preceding descriptor will make more sense.

Medscape

Realistic Diets and Taste Issues

“We know that increasing potassium, decreasing sodium is useful. The question is how do we do that?” says Dr. Hiremath. Should we encourage fruit and vegetable consumption in a healthy diet, give potassium supplements, or encourage the use of low-sodium salt substitutes?

Recommending a healthier diet with more fruits and vegetables is a no-brainer. But getting people to do it is hard. In a world where fruit is more expensive than junk food is, economic realities may drive food choice regardless of our best efforts. The 4700 mg of potassium in the DASH eating plan is the equivalent of eleven bananas daily; although not impossible, it would require a substantive shift in eating patterns for most people.

Given that we prescribe iron, vitamin B12, calcium, and vitamin D to patients who need them, why not potassium tablets to help with blood pressure? Granted, there are concerns about inducing hyperkalemia. Also, why not just prescribe a proven anti-hypertensive, such as ramipril, which has the added benefit of helping with renal protection or cardiac remodeling? Dr. Hiremath points out that patients are far less reluctant to take dietary supplements. Medication is something you take when sick. A supplement is seen as “natural” and “healthy” and might be more attractive to people resistant to prescription meds.

Another drawback of oral potassium supplementation is taste. In a Consumer Reports taste test, potassium chloride fared poorly. It was bitter and had a metallic aftertaste. At least one tester wouldn’t ever consume it again. Potassium citrate is slightly more palpable.

Salt substitutes, like the 75:25 ratio of sodium to potassium used in SSaSS, may be as high as you can go for potassium in any low-sodium salt alternative. If you go any higher than that, the taste will just turn people off, suggests Dr. Hiremath.

But SsaSS, which was done in China, may not be relevant to North America. In China, most sodium is added during cooking at home, and the consumption of processed foods is low. For the typical North American, roughly three quarters of the sodium eaten is added to their food by someone else; only about 15% is added during cooking at home or at the dinner table. If you aren’t someone who cooks, buying a salt substitute is probably not going to have much impact.

Given that reality, Dr. Juraschek thinks we need to target the sodium in processed foods. “There’s just so much sodium in so many products,” he says. “When you think about public policy, it’s most expeditious for there to be more regulation about how much is added to our food supply vs trying to get people to consume eight to 12 servings of fruit.”

No Salt War Here

Despite their different editorial takes, Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek largely agree on the broad strokes of the problem. This isn’t X (or Twitter) after all. Potassium supplementation may be useful in some parts of the world but may not address the underlying problem in countries where processed foods are the source of most dietary sodium.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial showed that a very low–sodium diet had the same blood pressure–lowering effect as a first-line antihypertensive, but most people will not be able to limit themselves to 500 mg of dietary sodium per day. In CARDIA-SSBP, just as in DASH, participants were provided with meals from study kitchens. They were not just told to eat less salt, which would almost certainly have failed.

“We should aim for stuff that is practical and doable rather than aim for stuff that cannot be done,” according to Dr. Hiremath. Whether that should be salt substitutes or policy change may depend on which part of the planet you live on.

One recent positive change may herald the beginning of a policy change, at least in the United States. In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule change to allow salt substitutes to be labeled as salt. This would make it easier for food manufacturers to swap out sodium chloride for a low-sodium alternative and reduce the amount of sodium in the US diet without having a large impact on taste and consumer uptake. Both Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek agree that it may not be enough on its own but that it’s a start.

Christopher Labos is a cardiologist with a degree in epidemiology. He spends most of his time doing things that he doesn’t get paid for, like research, teaching, and podcasting. Occasionally, he finds time to practice cardiology to pay the rent. He realizes that half of his research findings will be disproved in 5 years; he just doesn’t know which half. He is a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette, CJAD radio, and CTV television in Montreal, and is host of the award-winning podcast The Body of Evidence.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of dueling editorials in the journal Hypertension debate whether our focus should be on sodium or its often neglected partner, potassium.

Should we cut sodium from our diet or eat more potassium to lower blood pressure? The answer requires an intricate understanding of renal physiology that is fascinating. To nephrologists. A meta-analysis of 85 trials showed a consistent and linear. It may also depend on where you live and whether your concern is treating individuals or implementing effective food policy.

The Case for Sodium Restriction

Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, co-author of one editorial, told me in a zoom interview that he believes his side of the debate clearly has the stronger argument. Of the two cations in question, there has been infinitely more ink spilled about sodium.

Studies such as INTERSALT, the DASH diet, and TOHP may be the most well-known, but there are many, many intervention studies of sodium restriction’s effect on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of 85 trials of showed a consistent and linear relationship between sodium reduction and blood pressure. In contrast, the evidence base for potassium is more limited and less consistent. There are half as many trials with potassium, and its ability to lower blood pressure may depend on how much sodium is present in the diet.

An outlier in the sodium restriction evidence base is the PURE study, which suggested that extreme sodium restriction could increase cardiovascular mortality, but the trial suffered from two potential issues. First, it used a single spot urine specimen to measure sodium rather than the generally accepted more accurate 24-hour urine collection. A reanalysis of the TOHP study using a spot urine rather than a 24-hour urine collection changed the relationship between sodium intake and mortality and possibly explained the U-shaped association observed in PURE. Second, PURE was an observational cohort and was prone to confounding, or in this case, reverse causation. Why did people who consumed very little salt have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease? It is very possible that people with a high risk for cardiovascular disease were told to consume less salt to begin with. Hence B led to A rather than A leading to B.

The debate on sodium restriction has been bitter at times. Opposing camps formed, and people took sides in the “salt wars.” A group of researchers, termed the Jackson 6, met and decided to end the controversy by running a randomized trial in US prisons (having discounted the options of long-term care homes and military bases). They detailed their plan in an editorial in Hypertension. The study never came to fruition for two reasons: the obvious ethical problems of experimenting on prisoners and the revelation of undisclosed salt industry funding.

More recent studies have mercifully been more conventional. The SSaSS study, a randomized controlled trial of a salt substitute, provided the cardiovascular outcomes data that many were waiting for. And CARDIA-SSBP, a cross-over randomized trial recently presented at the American Heart Association meeting, showed that reducing dietary sodium was on par with medication when it came to lowering blood pressure.

For Dr. Juraschek, the evidence is clear: “If you were going to choose one, I would say the weight of the evidence is still really heavily on the sodium side.”

The Case for Potassium Supplementation

The evidence for salt restriction notwithstanding, Swapnil Hiremath, MD, MPH, from the University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, argued in his editorial that potassium supplementation has gotten short shrift. Though he admits the studies for potassium supplementation have been smaller and sometimes rely on observational evidence, the evidence is there. In the distal convoluted tubule, the sodium chloride cotransporter (NCC), aka the potassium switch, is turned on by low potassium levels and leads to sodium reabsorption by the kidney even in settings of high sodium intake (Figure). To nonnephrologists, renal physiology may be a black box. But if you quickly brush up on the mechanism of action of thiazide diuretics, the preceding descriptor will make more sense.

Medscape

Realistic Diets and Taste Issues

“We know that increasing potassium, decreasing sodium is useful. The question is how do we do that?” says Dr. Hiremath. Should we encourage fruit and vegetable consumption in a healthy diet, give potassium supplements, or encourage the use of low-sodium salt substitutes?

Recommending a healthier diet with more fruits and vegetables is a no-brainer. But getting people to do it is hard. In a world where fruit is more expensive than junk food is, economic realities may drive food choice regardless of our best efforts. The 4700 mg of potassium in the DASH eating plan is the equivalent of eleven bananas daily; although not impossible, it would require a substantive shift in eating patterns for most people.

Given that we prescribe iron, vitamin B12, calcium, and vitamin D to patients who need them, why not potassium tablets to help with blood pressure? Granted, there are concerns about inducing hyperkalemia. Also, why not just prescribe a proven anti-hypertensive, such as ramipril, which has the added benefit of helping with renal protection or cardiac remodeling? Dr. Hiremath points out that patients are far less reluctant to take dietary supplements. Medication is something you take when sick. A supplement is seen as “natural” and “healthy” and might be more attractive to people resistant to prescription meds.

Another drawback of oral potassium supplementation is taste. In a Consumer Reports taste test, potassium chloride fared poorly. It was bitter and had a metallic aftertaste. At least one tester wouldn’t ever consume it again. Potassium citrate is slightly more palpable.

Salt substitutes, like the 75:25 ratio of sodium to potassium used in SSaSS, may be as high as you can go for potassium in any low-sodium salt alternative. If you go any higher than that, the taste will just turn people off, suggests Dr. Hiremath.

But SsaSS, which was done in China, may not be relevant to North America. In China, most sodium is added during cooking at home, and the consumption of processed foods is low. For the typical North American, roughly three quarters of the sodium eaten is added to their food by someone else; only about 15% is added during cooking at home or at the dinner table. If you aren’t someone who cooks, buying a salt substitute is probably not going to have much impact.

Given that reality, Dr. Juraschek thinks we need to target the sodium in processed foods. “There’s just so much sodium in so many products,” he says. “When you think about public policy, it’s most expeditious for there to be more regulation about how much is added to our food supply vs trying to get people to consume eight to 12 servings of fruit.”

No Salt War Here

Despite their different editorial takes, Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek largely agree on the broad strokes of the problem. This isn’t X (or Twitter) after all. Potassium supplementation may be useful in some parts of the world but may not address the underlying problem in countries where processed foods are the source of most dietary sodium.

The CARDIA-SSBP trial showed that a very low–sodium diet had the same blood pressure–lowering effect as a first-line antihypertensive, but most people will not be able to limit themselves to 500 mg of dietary sodium per day. In CARDIA-SSBP, just as in DASH, participants were provided with meals from study kitchens. They were not just told to eat less salt, which would almost certainly have failed.

“We should aim for stuff that is practical and doable rather than aim for stuff that cannot be done,” according to Dr. Hiremath. Whether that should be salt substitutes or policy change may depend on which part of the planet you live on.

One recent positive change may herald the beginning of a policy change, at least in the United States. In March 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed a rule change to allow salt substitutes to be labeled as salt. This would make it easier for food manufacturers to swap out sodium chloride for a low-sodium alternative and reduce the amount of sodium in the US diet without having a large impact on taste and consumer uptake. Both Dr. Hiremath and Dr. Juraschek agree that it may not be enough on its own but that it’s a start.

Christopher Labos is a cardiologist with a degree in epidemiology. He spends most of his time doing things that he doesn’t get paid for, like research, teaching, and podcasting. Occasionally, he finds time to practice cardiology to pay the rent. He realizes that half of his research findings will be disproved in 5 years; he just doesn’t know which half. He is a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette, CJAD radio, and CTV television in Montreal, and is host of the award-winning podcast The Body of Evidence.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

From the year 2000 until around 2016, the incidence of breast cancer among young women — those under age 50 — rose steadily, if slowly.

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

Dr. F. Perry 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.

From the year 2000 until around 2016, the incidence of breast cancer among young women — those under age 50 — rose steadily, if slowly.

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

Dr. F. Perry 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.

From the year 2000 until around 2016, the incidence of breast cancer among young women — those under age 50 — rose steadily, if slowly.

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

JAMA Network Open

Dr. F. Perry 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.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Neha Pathak, MD: Hello. Today, we’re talking to Dr. Daniel Clauw, a professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who is running a major trial on treatments for chronic back pain. We’re talking today about managing back pain in the post-opioid world. Thank you so much, Dr. Clauw, for taking the time to be our resident pain consultant today. Managing chronic pain can lead to a large amount of burnout and helplessness in the clinic setting. That’s the reality with some of the modalities that patients are requesting; there is still confusion about what is optimal for a particular type of patient, this feeling that we’re not really helping people get better, and whenever patients come in, that’s always still their chief complaint.

How would you advise providers to think about that and to settle into their role as communicators about better strategies without the burnout?

Daniel Clauw, MD: The first thing is to broaden the number of other providers that you get involved in these individuals’ care as the evidence base for all of these nonpharmacologic therapies being effective in chronic pain increases and increases. As third-party payers begin to reimburse for more and more of these therapies, it’s really difficult to manage chronic pain patients if you’re trying to do it alone on an island.

If you can, identify the good physical therapists in your community that are going to really work with people to give them an exercise program that they can use at home; find a pain psychologist that can offer some cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia and some CBT for pain; and in the subset of patients with trauma, give them the emotional awareness of the neural reprocessing therapy for that specific subset.

As you start to identify more and more of these nonpharmacologic therapies that you want your patients to try, each of those has a set of providers and they can be incredibly helpful so that you, as the primary care provider (PCP), don’t really feel overwhelmed that you’re it, that you’re the only one.

Many of these individuals have more time to spend, and they have more one-on-one in-person time than you do as a primary care physician in the current healthcare system. Many of those providers have become really good at doing amateur CBT, goal-setting, and some of the other things that you need to do when you manage chronic pain patients. Try to find that other group of people that you can send your patients to that are going to be offering some of these nonpharmacologic therapies, and they’ll really help you manage these individuals.

Dr. Pathak: I think a couple of things come up for me. One is that we have to maybe broaden thinking about pain management, not only as multimodal strategies but also as multidisciplinary strategies. To your point, I think that’s really important. I also worry and wonder about health equity concerns, because just as overburdened as many PCPs are, we’re seeing it’s very difficult to get into physical therapy or to get into a setting where you’d be able to receive CBT for your pain. Any thoughts on those types of considerations?

Dr. Clauw: That’s a huge problem. Our group and many other groups in the pain space are developing websites, smartphone apps, and things like that to try to get some of these things directly to individuals with pain, not only for the reasons that you stated but also so that persons with pain don’t have to become patients. Our healthcare systems often make pain worse rather than better.

There were some great articles in The Lancet about 5 years ago talking about low back pain and that in different countries, the healthcare systems, for different reasons, have a tendency to actually make low back pain worse because they do too much surgery, immobilize people, or things like that rather than just not make them better. I think we’ve overmedicalized chronic pain in some settings, and much of what we’re trying to lead people to are things that are parts of wellness programs. The NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health director talks about whole person health often.

I think that these interdisciplinary, integrative approaches are what we have to be using for chronic pain patients. I tell pain patients that, among acupuncture, acupressure, mindfulness, five different forms of CBT, yoga, and tai chi, I don’t know which of those is going to work, but I know that about 1 in 3 individuals that tries each of those therapies gets a benefit. What I really should be doing most is incentivizing people and motivating people to keep trying some of those nonpharmacologic approaches that they haven’t yet tried, because when they find one that works for them, then they will integrate it into their day-to-day life.

The other trick I would use for primary care physicians or anyone managing chronic pain patients is, don’t try to incentivize a pain patient to go try a new nonpharmacologic therapy or start an exercise program because you want their pain score to go from a 6 to a 3. Incentivize them by asking them, what are two or three things that you’re not able to do now because you have chronic pain that you’d really like to be able to do?

You’d like to play nine holes of golf; you’d like to be able to hug your grandchild; or you’d like to be able to do something else. Use those functional goals that are patient0driven to motivate your patients to do these things, because that will work much better. Again, any of us are inherently more likely to take the time and the effort to do some of these nonpharmacologic therapies if it’s for a reason that internally motivates us.

Dr. Pathak: I think that’s great. I’m very privileged to work within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. I think that there’s been a huge shift within VA healthcare to provide these ancillary services, whether it’s yoga, tai chi, or acupuncture, as an adjunct to the pain management strategy.

Also, what comes up for me, as you’re saying, is grounding the point that instead of relying on a pain score — which can be objective and different from patient to patient and even within a patient — we should choose a smart goal that is almost more objective when it’s functional. Your goal is to walk two blocks to the mailbox. Can we achieve that as part of your pain control strategy?

I so appreciate your taking the time to be our pain consultant today. I really appreciate our discussion, and I’d like to hand it over to you for any final thoughts.

Dr. Clauw: I’d add that when you’re seeing chronic pain patients, many of them are going to have comorbid sleep problems. They’re going to have comorbid problems with fatigue and memory problems, especially the central nervous system–driven forms of pain that we now call nociplastic pain. Look at those as therapeutic targets.

If you’re befuddled because you’ve tried many different things for pain in this individual you’ve been seeing for a while, focus on their sleep and focus on getting them more active. Don’t use the word exercise — because that scares chronic pain patients — but focus on getting them more active.

There are many different tactics and strategies that you can use to motivate the patients to try some of these new nonpharmacologic approaches as the evidence base continues to increase.

Dr. Pathak: Thank you so much, again, to Dr. Clauw for joining us and being our pain consultant, really helping us to think about managing back pain in the postopioid world.
 

Dr. Pathak is Chief Physician Editor, Health and Lifestyle Medicine, WebMD. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Clauw is Director, Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He disclosed ties with Tonix and Viatris.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals are a stepchild in the bizarre mishmash of the U.S. healthcare system. They’re best known (often justifiably so) for rather cantankerous patients, rigid rules, and other oddities (such as patients being able to go on leave and come back).

The majority of American doctors, including myself, did at least part of our training at a VA and have no shortage of stories about them. One I worked at (Omaha VA) was powered by its own nuclear reactor in the basement (no, really, it was, though sadly it’s since been taken out).

VA hospitals, in general, are no-frills — linoleum floors, no piano player in the lobby, very few private rooms, and occasionally in the news for scandals like the one at my hometown Carl T. Hayden VA hospital (I trained there, too).

Yet, a recent study found VA hospitals to be surprisingly efficient compared with the private sector. Their focus on patient care, rather than profits, allows them to run with 8% fewer administrative staff since they generally don’t have to deal with insurance billings, denials, and other paperwork (they also don’t have to deal with shareholders and investor demands or ridiculous CEO salaries, though the study didn’t address that).

On a national scale, this would mean roughly 900,000 fewer administrative jobs in the private sector. Granted, that also would mean those people would have to find other jobs, but let’s look at the patient side. If you had 900,000 fewer desk workers, you’d have the money to hire more nurses, respiratory techs, therapists, and other people directly involved in patient care. You’d also need a lot less office space, which further brings down overhead.

Part of the problem is that a lot of the current medical business is in marketing — how many ads do you see each day for different hospitals in your area? — and upcoding to extract more money from each billing. Neither of these has any clinical value on the patient side of things.

You don’t have to look back too far (2020) for the study that found U.S. healthcare spent four times as much money ($812 billion) per capita than our northern neighbors.

And, for all the jokes we make about the VA (myself included), a study last year found its care was on par (or even better than) most hospitals .

I’m not saying the VA is perfect. All of us who worked there can think of times it wasn’t. But we also remember plenty of issues we’ve had at other places we’ve practiced, too.

Maybe it’s time to stop laughing at the VA and realize they’re doing something right — and learn from it to make healthcare better at the other 6,000 or so hospitals in the U.S.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prior to 2013, the backbone of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy was pegylated interferon (PEG) in combination with ribavirin (RBV). This year-long therapy was associated with significant side effects and abysmal cure rates. Although efficacy improved with the addition of first-generation protease inhibitors, cure rates remained suboptimal and treatment side effects continued to be significant.

Clinicians and patients needed better options and looked to the drug pipeline with hope. However, even among the most optimistic, the idea that HCV therapy could evolve into an all-oral option seemed a relative pipe dream.

The Sofosbuvir Revolution Begins

The Liver Meeting held in 2013 changed everything.

Several presentations featured compelling data with sofosbuvir, a new polymerase inhibitor that, when combined with RBV, offered an all-oral option to patients with genotypes 2 and 3, as well as improved efficacy for patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 when it was combined with 12 weeks of PEG/RBV.

However, the glass ceiling of HCV care was truly shattered with the randomized COSMOS trial, a late-breaker abstract that revealed 12-week functional cure rates in patients receiving sofosbuvir in combination with the protease inhibitor simeprevir.

This phase 2a trial in treatment-naive and -experienced genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis showed that an all-oral option was not only viable for the most common strain of HCV but was also safe and efficacious, even in difficult-to-treat populations.

On December 6, 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV, ushering in a new era of therapy.

Guidelines quickly changed to advocate for both expansive HCV screening and generous treatment. Yet, as this more permissive approach was being recommended, the high price tag and large anticipated volume of those seeking prescriptions were setting off alarms. The drug cost triggered extensive restrictions based on degree of fibrosis, sobriety, and provider type in an effort to prevent immediate healthcare expenditures.

Given its high cost, rules restricting a patient to only one course of sofosbuvir-based therapy also surfaced. Although treatment with first-generation protease inhibitors carried a hefty price of $161,813.49 per sustained virologic response (SVR), compared with $66,000-$100,000 for 12 weeks of all-oral therapy, its uptake was low and limited by side effects and comorbid conditions. All-oral treatment appeared to have few medical barriers, leading payers to find ways to slow utilization. These restrictions are now gradually being eliminated.

Because of high SVR rates and few contraindications to therapy, most patients who gained access to treatment achieved cure. This included patients who had previously not responded to treatment and prioritized those with more advanced disease.

This quickly led to a significant shift in the population in need of treatment. Prior to 2013, many patients with HCV had advanced disease and did not respond to prior treatment options. After uptake of all-oral therapy, individuals in need were typically treatment naive without advanced disease.

This shift also added new psychosocial dimensions, as many of the newly infected individuals were struggling with active substance abuse. HCV treatment providers needed to change, with increasing recruitment of advanced practice providers, primary care physicians, and addiction medication specialists.

Progress, but Far From Reaching Targets

Fast-forward to 2023.

Ten years after FDA approval, 13.2 million individuals infected with HCV have been treated globally, 82% with sofosbuvir-based regimens and most in lower-middle-income countries. This is absolutely cause for celebration, but not complacency.

In 2016, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution of elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined elimination of HCV as 90% reduction in new cases of infection, 90% diagnosis of those infected, 80% of eligible individuals treated, and 65% reduction of deaths by 2030.

Despite all the success thus far, the CDA Foundation estimates that the WHO elimination targets will not be achieved until after the year 2050. They also note that in 2020, over 50 million individuals were infected with HCV, of which only 20% were diagnosed and 1% annually treated.

The HCV care cascade, by which the patient journeys from screening to cure, is complicated, and a one-size-fits-all solution is not possible. Reflex testing (an automatic transition to HCV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing in the lab for those who are HCV antibody positive) has significantly improved diagnosis. However, communicating these results and linking a patient to curative therapy remain significant obstacles.

Models and real-life experience show that multiple strategies can be successful. They include leveraging the electronic medical record, simplified treatment algorithms, test-and-treat strategies (screening high-risk populations with a point-of-care test that allows treatment initiation at the same visit), and co-localizing HCV screening and treatment with addiction services and relinkage programs (finding those who are already diagnosed and linking them to treatment).

In addition, focusing on populations at high risk for HCV infection — such as people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and incarcerated individuals — allows for better resource utilization.

Though daunting, HCV elimination is not impossible. There are several examples of success, including in the countries of Georgia and Iceland. Although, comparatively, the United States remains behind the curve, the White House has asked Congress for $11 billion to fund HCV elimination domestically.

As we await action at the national level, clinicians are reminded that there are several things we can do in caring for patients with HCV:

• A one-time HCV screening is recommended in all individuals aged 18 or older, including pregnant people with each pregnancy.
• HCV antibody testing with reflex to PCR should be used as the screening test.
• Pan-genotypic all-oral therapy is recommended for patients with HCV. Cure rates are greater than 95%, and there are few contraindications to treatment.
• Most people are eligible for simplified treatment algorithms that allow minimal on-treatment monitoring.

Without increased screening and linkage to curative therapy, we will not meet the WHO goals for HCV elimination.

Dr. Reau is chief of the hepatology section at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago and a regular contributor to this news organization. She serves as editor of Clinical Liver Disease, a multimedia review journal, and recently as a member of HCVGuidelines.org, a web-based resource from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as educational chair of the AASLD hepatitis C special interest group. She continues to have an active role in the hepatology interest group of the World Gastroenterology Organisation and the American Liver Foundation at the regional and national levels. She disclosed ties with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.