Video

PARIS – Lower levels of physical activity over time were linked to a significantly increased risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, according to results from a prospective cohort study that followed more than 23,000 adults for over 2 decades.

“Individuals who remained physically inactive, or who decreased their physical activity over 22 years, had substantially increased risk of dying from all causes, and from cardiovascular disease,” Trine Moholdt, PhD, said at a press conference at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The bad news is that sustained inactivity was associated with a 99% increase in all-cause mortality and 168% increase in cardiovascular deaths” compared with sustained physical activity, she said.

The news was similarly bad for individuals who had been highly active and then became inactive; this cohort had an increase in all-cause mortality of 116% and sustained a 173% increase in cardiovascular deaths. “Previous activity levels – they don’t count. You have to keep it up,” said Dr. Moholdt, speaking in a video interview.

However, the risk associated with inactivity was attenuated for those patients who became more active over the course of the study period; their risk was still higher than that of those who had sustained activity, but lower than those who remained inactive. “It’s never too late to start being physically active,” said Dr. Moholdt.

All groups were compared with individuals who remained highly active over the study period; this reference group had the lowest risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause death.

Dr. Moholdt noted a limitation of most previous research into how physical activity relates to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: Data are obtained just at baseline, and then associated with a downstream outcome. “But people change!” she said, so it’s important to track how activity levels change over time.

To that end, the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT study) measured activity levels for 23,156 participants at two points, and then assessed cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, over a period of 22 years.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moholdt T. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P627.

PARIS – Lower levels of physical activity over time were linked to a significantly increased risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, according to results from a prospective cohort study that followed more than 23,000 adults for over 2 decades.

“Individuals who remained physically inactive, or who decreased their physical activity over 22 years, had substantially increased risk of dying from all causes, and from cardiovascular disease,” Trine Moholdt, PhD, said at a press conference at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The bad news is that sustained inactivity was associated with a 99% increase in all-cause mortality and 168% increase in cardiovascular deaths” compared with sustained physical activity, she said.

The news was similarly bad for individuals who had been highly active and then became inactive; this cohort had an increase in all-cause mortality of 116% and sustained a 173% increase in cardiovascular deaths. “Previous activity levels – they don’t count. You have to keep it up,” said Dr. Moholdt, speaking in a video interview.

However, the risk associated with inactivity was attenuated for those patients who became more active over the course of the study period; their risk was still higher than that of those who had sustained activity, but lower than those who remained inactive. “It’s never too late to start being physically active,” said Dr. Moholdt.

All groups were compared with individuals who remained highly active over the study period; this reference group had the lowest risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause death.

Dr. Moholdt noted a limitation of most previous research into how physical activity relates to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: Data are obtained just at baseline, and then associated with a downstream outcome. “But people change!” she said, so it’s important to track how activity levels change over time.

To that end, the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT study) measured activity levels for 23,156 participants at two points, and then assessed cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, over a period of 22 years.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moholdt T. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P627.

PARIS – Lower levels of physical activity over time were linked to a significantly increased risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, according to results from a prospective cohort study that followed more than 23,000 adults for over 2 decades.

“Individuals who remained physically inactive, or who decreased their physical activity over 22 years, had substantially increased risk of dying from all causes, and from cardiovascular disease,” Trine Moholdt, PhD, said at a press conference at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The bad news is that sustained inactivity was associated with a 99% increase in all-cause mortality and 168% increase in cardiovascular deaths” compared with sustained physical activity, she said.

The news was similarly bad for individuals who had been highly active and then became inactive; this cohort had an increase in all-cause mortality of 116% and sustained a 173% increase in cardiovascular deaths. “Previous activity levels – they don’t count. You have to keep it up,” said Dr. Moholdt, speaking in a video interview.

However, the risk associated with inactivity was attenuated for those patients who became more active over the course of the study period; their risk was still higher than that of those who had sustained activity, but lower than those who remained inactive. “It’s never too late to start being physically active,” said Dr. Moholdt.

All groups were compared with individuals who remained highly active over the study period; this reference group had the lowest risk of both cardiovascular and all-cause death.

Dr. Moholdt noted a limitation of most previous research into how physical activity relates to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: Data are obtained just at baseline, and then associated with a downstream outcome. “But people change!” she said, so it’s important to track how activity levels change over time.

To that end, the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT study) measured activity levels for 23,156 participants at two points, and then assessed cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, over a period of 22 years.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moholdt T. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P627.

When the summons arrived, Nataly Minkina, MD, took one look at the lawsuit and fainted.

Leonid Weinstein

The Boston-area internist had treated the plaintiff just once while covering for the patient’s primary care physician. During a visit for an upper respiratory infection, the patient mentioned a lump in her breast, and Dr. Minkina confirmed a small thickening in the woman’s right breast. She sent the patient for a mammogram and ultrasound, the results of which the radiologist reported were normal, according to court documents.

Five years later, the patient claimed Dr. Minkina was one of several providers responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis.

Even worse than the lawsuit, however, was how her former insurer resolved the case, said Dr. Minkina, now an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Chestnut Hill, Mass. The claim was settled against the defendants for $500,000, and Dr. Minkina was alloted 30% of the liability. No fault was assigned to the other physicians named, while a nurse practitioner was alloted 10%, and the medical practice was alloted 60% liability, according to court documents.

“I was very upset,” Dr. Minkina said. “First of all, I was kept in the dark. Nobody ever talked to me. I did not get a single report or any document from my attorney in 12 months. When I asked why was I assigned the [30%] liability, they said the experts gave me bad evaluations, but they would not show reports to me. I was literally scapegoated.”

When the insurer refused to reconsider the allocation, Dr. Minkina took her complaint to court. The internist now has been embroiled in a legal challenge against Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) for 7 years. Dr. Minkina’s lawsuit alleges the insurer engaged in a bad faith allocation to serve its own economic interests by shifting fault for the claim from its insureds to its former client, Dr. Minkina. The insurance company contends the allocation was a careful and rational decision based on case evidence. In late July, the case went to trial in Dedham, Mass.

ProMutual declined comment on the case; the insurer also would not address general questions about its allocation policies.

“I started this fight because I felt violated and betrayed, not to make money,” Dr. Minkina said. “I am not rich by a long shot, and I wanted to clear my name because [a] good name is all I have. Additionally, having [a] record about malpractice payment in my physician profile makes me vulnerable.”

Liability experts say the case highlights the conflicts that can arise between physicians and insurers during malpractice lawsuits. The legal challenge also raises questions about allocations of liability by insurers, how the determinations are made, and what impact they have on doctors going forward.

The proportion of liability assigned after a settlement matters, said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, a neurosurgeon and founder of Medical Justice, a medicolegal consulting firm for physicians.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a subtext that your piece of the pie – the part that is allocated to you – is your liability, your culpability, your guilt,” Dr. Segal said in an interview. “This has impact going down the road in terms of reputation, in terms of credibility, and potentially of your premiums going forward. There are some real-world economic consequences.”

 

 

Bad care or bad faith?

In Dr. Minkina’s case, some facts are undisputed. In 2002, Dr. Minkina, then a physician at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass., referred a 55-year-old patient for a mammogram and an ultrasound after confirming some nodularity in the women’s breast. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities which Dr. Minkina relayed to the patient, advising her to follow-up with her primary care physician and to schedule yearly mammograms. The patient did neither, according to court records. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after the visit.

In early 2006, the patient visited the practice, and a nurse practitioner sent her for another mammogram and an ultrasound. The mammogram report included some signs of malignancy, but the nurse misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent a brain MRI and a breast MRI, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.

The agreement between parties ends there. Dr. Minkina believes she followed the standard of care and was not responsible for the delayed breast cancer diagnosis. Given the radiologist’s negative report and the patient’s lack of visual abnormalities, she contends she adequately referred the patient to her primary care physician for further consultation and evaluation. Dr. Minkina argues the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer an insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.

ProMutual contends Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of violations of standards of care and because of causation factors. The insurer’s experts asserted that when treating an older woman with a palpable lump, the standard of care is to obtain a biopsy, according to opening arguments by ProMutual defense counsel Tamara Wolfson.

The experts also concluded that, when the nurse practitioner and primary care physician saw the patient in 2006, the patient would have already had metastatic disease, and a cancer diagnosis at that time would not have saved her, according to court transcripts. Had the cancer been diagnosed in 2002 when Dr. Minkina saw the patient, the disease would have been “very treatable,” the experts further concluded.

“So, faced with negative opinions on both the standard of care and causation, [the claim representative] was very concerned that Dr. Minkina not only faced a very substantial risk of an adverse verdict in the ... suit, but a verdict that would exceed Dr. Minkina’s policy limits,” Ms. Wolfson said during opening arguments.

The evidence led to the settlement and the allocation decision, Ms. Wolfson said, adding that the majority – 60% – fell on Blue Hills Medical Associates because it lacked a good system to track and follow up with patients. There was zero benefit to ProMutual as to how the $500,000 settlement was parsed, she said during trial.

A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.”

Dr. Minkina had been a plaintiff in unrelated litigation in the past. In 2005, she sued her former employer for alleged discrimination and retaliation after claiming she was mistreated and terminated for complaining about fumes. She prevailed and was awarded an arbitration award of about $266,000. In 2009, Dr. Minkina sued the original law firm that represented her in the discrimination suit for malpractice, alleging the firm’s negligence cost her the chance to go to trial. A judge dismissed the claim as frivolous and ordered Dr. Minkina to pay the firm’s legal fees. The doctor twice has been jailed for failing to fully resolve that legal payment. The case remains outstanding, and Dr. Minkina is now in bankruptcy.
 

 

 

What’s in an allocation?

Liability allocations are an integral part of multiparty medical malpractice claims, said Brian Atchinson, president and CEO for the Medical Professional Liability Association, a trade association for medical liability insurers.

“In any case involving more than one party, there is a potential allocation issue,” Mr. Atchinson said in an interview. “[Insurers] generally look to the liability and damages incurred with regard to their respective insureds in a case and work to establish an allocation that reflects actual liability.”

If the case goes to a jury and jurors find for the plaintiff, depending on the nature of the damages awarded, the jury may be called on to allocate liability among multiple defendants, he said.

Because settlements are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), the proportion of liability assigned to each defendant has significance, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis and chair for the Defense Research Institute’s Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee.

Vidyard Video

“The allocation matters because the amount of settlement matters,” Mr. Moore said. “A lower settlement amount suggests the physician’s insurance company made a cost-benefit business decision to end litigation without more expense, while an extremely high settlement suggests actual malpractice.”

State medical boards have varying reporting requirements. Some state boards require both the amount paid by the individual provider and the global settlement amount – if known – while other state boards require only the amount paid on behalf of the provider.

Conflicts over allocations are not common, Dr. Segal said. More frequent are disputes among physicians and insurers over the potential settling of a claim. Such conflicts underscore the importance of paying close attention to contract language when signing with an insurer, Dr. Segal said.

Whether the contract includes a consent to settle clause, for example, can markedly change the case outcome. The clause means the insurer must have the doctor’s approval to settle the case. Absent the clause, insurers generally have authority to settle all claims arising under the policy.

Other contracts may include a “hammer clause,” Dr. Segal notes. This gives doctors the ultimate vote on settling, but it stipulates that if the physician refuses a settlement offer and opts for trial, the doctor is responsible for any surplus award, should the doctor lose.

In Dr. Minkina’s case, the doctor’s contract allowed ProMutual to settle without her consent, but the contract was silent on allocations.

Dr. Segal and Mr. Moore both said the odds of Dr. Minkina prevailing are fairly low. In another case, a South Carolina doctor similarly sued the South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Joint Underwriting Association over an allocation of liability following a settlement. The doctor claimed he should not be assigned any portion of the $500,000 settlement, and he sued after his insurer assigned him one-seventh liability.

A trial court found in his favor, ruling the insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to treat each physician equally when determining liability. The Supreme Court of South Carolina in 2001 overturned that decision, finding the evidence did not support a bad faith finding and that the insurer’s allocation decision was reasonable.

If the Massachusetts case ends in Dr. Minkina’s favor, it will be as a result of strong evidence that the insurer placed its interests ahead of the physician’s financial and other interests, Mr. Moore said.

“If that happens, I anticipate that insurers may revise their standard policy provisions to clarify and limit the extent to which physicians have the right to be involved in allocation decisions,” he said.

[email protected]

When the summons arrived, Nataly Minkina, MD, took one look at the lawsuit and fainted.

Leonid Weinstein

The Boston-area internist had treated the plaintiff just once while covering for the patient’s primary care physician. During a visit for an upper respiratory infection, the patient mentioned a lump in her breast, and Dr. Minkina confirmed a small thickening in the woman’s right breast. She sent the patient for a mammogram and ultrasound, the results of which the radiologist reported were normal, according to court documents.

Five years later, the patient claimed Dr. Minkina was one of several providers responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis.

Even worse than the lawsuit, however, was how her former insurer resolved the case, said Dr. Minkina, now an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Chestnut Hill, Mass. The claim was settled against the defendants for $500,000, and Dr. Minkina was alloted 30% of the liability. No fault was assigned to the other physicians named, while a nurse practitioner was alloted 10%, and the medical practice was alloted 60% liability, according to court documents.

“I was very upset,” Dr. Minkina said. “First of all, I was kept in the dark. Nobody ever talked to me. I did not get a single report or any document from my attorney in 12 months. When I asked why was I assigned the [30%] liability, they said the experts gave me bad evaluations, but they would not show reports to me. I was literally scapegoated.”

When the insurer refused to reconsider the allocation, Dr. Minkina took her complaint to court. The internist now has been embroiled in a legal challenge against Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) for 7 years. Dr. Minkina’s lawsuit alleges the insurer engaged in a bad faith allocation to serve its own economic interests by shifting fault for the claim from its insureds to its former client, Dr. Minkina. The insurance company contends the allocation was a careful and rational decision based on case evidence. In late July, the case went to trial in Dedham, Mass.

ProMutual declined comment on the case; the insurer also would not address general questions about its allocation policies.

“I started this fight because I felt violated and betrayed, not to make money,” Dr. Minkina said. “I am not rich by a long shot, and I wanted to clear my name because [a] good name is all I have. Additionally, having [a] record about malpractice payment in my physician profile makes me vulnerable.”

Liability experts say the case highlights the conflicts that can arise between physicians and insurers during malpractice lawsuits. The legal challenge also raises questions about allocations of liability by insurers, how the determinations are made, and what impact they have on doctors going forward.

The proportion of liability assigned after a settlement matters, said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, a neurosurgeon and founder of Medical Justice, a medicolegal consulting firm for physicians.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a subtext that your piece of the pie – the part that is allocated to you – is your liability, your culpability, your guilt,” Dr. Segal said in an interview. “This has impact going down the road in terms of reputation, in terms of credibility, and potentially of your premiums going forward. There are some real-world economic consequences.”

 

 

Bad care or bad faith?

In Dr. Minkina’s case, some facts are undisputed. In 2002, Dr. Minkina, then a physician at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass., referred a 55-year-old patient for a mammogram and an ultrasound after confirming some nodularity in the women’s breast. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities which Dr. Minkina relayed to the patient, advising her to follow-up with her primary care physician and to schedule yearly mammograms. The patient did neither, according to court records. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after the visit.

In early 2006, the patient visited the practice, and a nurse practitioner sent her for another mammogram and an ultrasound. The mammogram report included some signs of malignancy, but the nurse misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent a brain MRI and a breast MRI, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.

The agreement between parties ends there. Dr. Minkina believes she followed the standard of care and was not responsible for the delayed breast cancer diagnosis. Given the radiologist’s negative report and the patient’s lack of visual abnormalities, she contends she adequately referred the patient to her primary care physician for further consultation and evaluation. Dr. Minkina argues the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer an insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.

ProMutual contends Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of violations of standards of care and because of causation factors. The insurer’s experts asserted that when treating an older woman with a palpable lump, the standard of care is to obtain a biopsy, according to opening arguments by ProMutual defense counsel Tamara Wolfson.

The experts also concluded that, when the nurse practitioner and primary care physician saw the patient in 2006, the patient would have already had metastatic disease, and a cancer diagnosis at that time would not have saved her, according to court transcripts. Had the cancer been diagnosed in 2002 when Dr. Minkina saw the patient, the disease would have been “very treatable,” the experts further concluded.

“So, faced with negative opinions on both the standard of care and causation, [the claim representative] was very concerned that Dr. Minkina not only faced a very substantial risk of an adverse verdict in the ... suit, but a verdict that would exceed Dr. Minkina’s policy limits,” Ms. Wolfson said during opening arguments.

The evidence led to the settlement and the allocation decision, Ms. Wolfson said, adding that the majority – 60% – fell on Blue Hills Medical Associates because it lacked a good system to track and follow up with patients. There was zero benefit to ProMutual as to how the $500,000 settlement was parsed, she said during trial.

A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.”

Dr. Minkina had been a plaintiff in unrelated litigation in the past. In 2005, she sued her former employer for alleged discrimination and retaliation after claiming she was mistreated and terminated for complaining about fumes. She prevailed and was awarded an arbitration award of about $266,000. In 2009, Dr. Minkina sued the original law firm that represented her in the discrimination suit for malpractice, alleging the firm’s negligence cost her the chance to go to trial. A judge dismissed the claim as frivolous and ordered Dr. Minkina to pay the firm’s legal fees. The doctor twice has been jailed for failing to fully resolve that legal payment. The case remains outstanding, and Dr. Minkina is now in bankruptcy.
 

 

 

What’s in an allocation?

Liability allocations are an integral part of multiparty medical malpractice claims, said Brian Atchinson, president and CEO for the Medical Professional Liability Association, a trade association for medical liability insurers.

“In any case involving more than one party, there is a potential allocation issue,” Mr. Atchinson said in an interview. “[Insurers] generally look to the liability and damages incurred with regard to their respective insureds in a case and work to establish an allocation that reflects actual liability.”

If the case goes to a jury and jurors find for the plaintiff, depending on the nature of the damages awarded, the jury may be called on to allocate liability among multiple defendants, he said.

Because settlements are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), the proportion of liability assigned to each defendant has significance, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis and chair for the Defense Research Institute’s Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee.

Vidyard Video

“The allocation matters because the amount of settlement matters,” Mr. Moore said. “A lower settlement amount suggests the physician’s insurance company made a cost-benefit business decision to end litigation without more expense, while an extremely high settlement suggests actual malpractice.”

State medical boards have varying reporting requirements. Some state boards require both the amount paid by the individual provider and the global settlement amount – if known – while other state boards require only the amount paid on behalf of the provider.

Conflicts over allocations are not common, Dr. Segal said. More frequent are disputes among physicians and insurers over the potential settling of a claim. Such conflicts underscore the importance of paying close attention to contract language when signing with an insurer, Dr. Segal said.

Whether the contract includes a consent to settle clause, for example, can markedly change the case outcome. The clause means the insurer must have the doctor’s approval to settle the case. Absent the clause, insurers generally have authority to settle all claims arising under the policy.

Other contracts may include a “hammer clause,” Dr. Segal notes. This gives doctors the ultimate vote on settling, but it stipulates that if the physician refuses a settlement offer and opts for trial, the doctor is responsible for any surplus award, should the doctor lose.

In Dr. Minkina’s case, the doctor’s contract allowed ProMutual to settle without her consent, but the contract was silent on allocations.

Dr. Segal and Mr. Moore both said the odds of Dr. Minkina prevailing are fairly low. In another case, a South Carolina doctor similarly sued the South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Joint Underwriting Association over an allocation of liability following a settlement. The doctor claimed he should not be assigned any portion of the $500,000 settlement, and he sued after his insurer assigned him one-seventh liability.

A trial court found in his favor, ruling the insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to treat each physician equally when determining liability. The Supreme Court of South Carolina in 2001 overturned that decision, finding the evidence did not support a bad faith finding and that the insurer’s allocation decision was reasonable.

If the Massachusetts case ends in Dr. Minkina’s favor, it will be as a result of strong evidence that the insurer placed its interests ahead of the physician’s financial and other interests, Mr. Moore said.

“If that happens, I anticipate that insurers may revise their standard policy provisions to clarify and limit the extent to which physicians have the right to be involved in allocation decisions,” he said.

[email protected]

When the summons arrived, Nataly Minkina, MD, took one look at the lawsuit and fainted.

Leonid Weinstein

The Boston-area internist had treated the plaintiff just once while covering for the patient’s primary care physician. During a visit for an upper respiratory infection, the patient mentioned a lump in her breast, and Dr. Minkina confirmed a small thickening in the woman’s right breast. She sent the patient for a mammogram and ultrasound, the results of which the radiologist reported were normal, according to court documents.

Five years later, the patient claimed Dr. Minkina was one of several providers responsible for a missed breast cancer diagnosis.

Even worse than the lawsuit, however, was how her former insurer resolved the case, said Dr. Minkina, now an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Chestnut Hill, Mass. The claim was settled against the defendants for $500,000, and Dr. Minkina was alloted 30% of the liability. No fault was assigned to the other physicians named, while a nurse practitioner was alloted 10%, and the medical practice was alloted 60% liability, according to court documents.

“I was very upset,” Dr. Minkina said. “First of all, I was kept in the dark. Nobody ever talked to me. I did not get a single report or any document from my attorney in 12 months. When I asked why was I assigned the [30%] liability, they said the experts gave me bad evaluations, but they would not show reports to me. I was literally scapegoated.”

When the insurer refused to reconsider the allocation, Dr. Minkina took her complaint to court. The internist now has been embroiled in a legal challenge against Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company (ProMutual) for 7 years. Dr. Minkina’s lawsuit alleges the insurer engaged in a bad faith allocation to serve its own economic interests by shifting fault for the claim from its insureds to its former client, Dr. Minkina. The insurance company contends the allocation was a careful and rational decision based on case evidence. In late July, the case went to trial in Dedham, Mass.

ProMutual declined comment on the case; the insurer also would not address general questions about its allocation policies.

“I started this fight because I felt violated and betrayed, not to make money,” Dr. Minkina said. “I am not rich by a long shot, and I wanted to clear my name because [a] good name is all I have. Additionally, having [a] record about malpractice payment in my physician profile makes me vulnerable.”

Liability experts say the case highlights the conflicts that can arise between physicians and insurers during malpractice lawsuits. The legal challenge also raises questions about allocations of liability by insurers, how the determinations are made, and what impact they have on doctors going forward.

The proportion of liability assigned after a settlement matters, said Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, a neurosurgeon and founder of Medical Justice, a medicolegal consulting firm for physicians.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a subtext that your piece of the pie – the part that is allocated to you – is your liability, your culpability, your guilt,” Dr. Segal said in an interview. “This has impact going down the road in terms of reputation, in terms of credibility, and potentially of your premiums going forward. There are some real-world economic consequences.”

 

 

Bad care or bad faith?

In Dr. Minkina’s case, some facts are undisputed. In 2002, Dr. Minkina, then a physician at Blue Hills Medical Associates in Braintree, Mass., referred a 55-year-old patient for a mammogram and an ultrasound after confirming some nodularity in the women’s breast. A radiologist twice reported no abnormalities which Dr. Minkina relayed to the patient, advising her to follow-up with her primary care physician and to schedule yearly mammograms. The patient did neither, according to court records. Dr. Minkina left the practice shortly after the visit.

In early 2006, the patient visited the practice, and a nurse practitioner sent her for another mammogram and an ultrasound. The mammogram report included some signs of malignancy, but the nurse misread, misunderstood, or overlooked the signs and recorded that “the benign breast condition had no changes,” according to court transcripts. Later that year, the patient visited the practice complaining of headaches and a droopy eye at which time her primary care physician diagnosed sinusitis and prescribed antibiotics. In 2007, the patient underwent a brain MRI and a breast MRI, which revealed widespread metastatic carcinoma. She and her family sued Dr. Minkina and several others in June 2007. The patient died in 2008.

The agreement between parties ends there. Dr. Minkina believes she followed the standard of care and was not responsible for the delayed breast cancer diagnosis. Given the radiologist’s negative report and the patient’s lack of visual abnormalities, she contends she adequately referred the patient to her primary care physician for further consultation and evaluation. Dr. Minkina argues the insurer allocated an unjustifiably high percentage of liability to her because she was no longer an insured and because the company had an economic incentive to allocate a disproportionate percentage of responsibility and damages.

ProMutual contends Dr. Minkina bore more responsibility than the other health care professionals named for the delayed diagnosis because of violations of standards of care and because of causation factors. The insurer’s experts asserted that when treating an older woman with a palpable lump, the standard of care is to obtain a biopsy, according to opening arguments by ProMutual defense counsel Tamara Wolfson.

The experts also concluded that, when the nurse practitioner and primary care physician saw the patient in 2006, the patient would have already had metastatic disease, and a cancer diagnosis at that time would not have saved her, according to court transcripts. Had the cancer been diagnosed in 2002 when Dr. Minkina saw the patient, the disease would have been “very treatable,” the experts further concluded.

“So, faced with negative opinions on both the standard of care and causation, [the claim representative] was very concerned that Dr. Minkina not only faced a very substantial risk of an adverse verdict in the ... suit, but a verdict that would exceed Dr. Minkina’s policy limits,” Ms. Wolfson said during opening arguments.

The evidence led to the settlement and the allocation decision, Ms. Wolfson said, adding that the majority – 60% – fell on Blue Hills Medical Associates because it lacked a good system to track and follow up with patients. There was zero benefit to ProMutual as to how the $500,000 settlement was parsed, she said during trial.

A lower court initially dismissed Dr. Minkina’s suit, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 overturned that decision, ruling the case could move forward. In 2018, the superior court agreed Dr. Minkina had a valid bad faith claim, stating that she had provided information about ProMutual’s conduct from which “a reasonable juror could infer the defendant’s bad faith in connection with its settling the underlying malpractice suit, including the allocation of liability.”

Dr. Minkina had been a plaintiff in unrelated litigation in the past. In 2005, she sued her former employer for alleged discrimination and retaliation after claiming she was mistreated and terminated for complaining about fumes. She prevailed and was awarded an arbitration award of about $266,000. In 2009, Dr. Minkina sued the original law firm that represented her in the discrimination suit for malpractice, alleging the firm’s negligence cost her the chance to go to trial. A judge dismissed the claim as frivolous and ordered Dr. Minkina to pay the firm’s legal fees. The doctor twice has been jailed for failing to fully resolve that legal payment. The case remains outstanding, and Dr. Minkina is now in bankruptcy.
 

 

 

What’s in an allocation?

Liability allocations are an integral part of multiparty medical malpractice claims, said Brian Atchinson, president and CEO for the Medical Professional Liability Association, a trade association for medical liability insurers.

“In any case involving more than one party, there is a potential allocation issue,” Mr. Atchinson said in an interview. “[Insurers] generally look to the liability and damages incurred with regard to their respective insureds in a case and work to establish an allocation that reflects actual liability.”

If the case goes to a jury and jurors find for the plaintiff, depending on the nature of the damages awarded, the jury may be called on to allocate liability among multiple defendants, he said.

Because settlements are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), the proportion of liability assigned to each defendant has significance, said J. Richard Moore, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis and chair for the Defense Research Institute’s Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee.

Vidyard Video

“The allocation matters because the amount of settlement matters,” Mr. Moore said. “A lower settlement amount suggests the physician’s insurance company made a cost-benefit business decision to end litigation without more expense, while an extremely high settlement suggests actual malpractice.”

State medical boards have varying reporting requirements. Some state boards require both the amount paid by the individual provider and the global settlement amount – if known – while other state boards require only the amount paid on behalf of the provider.

Conflicts over allocations are not common, Dr. Segal said. More frequent are disputes among physicians and insurers over the potential settling of a claim. Such conflicts underscore the importance of paying close attention to contract language when signing with an insurer, Dr. Segal said.

Whether the contract includes a consent to settle clause, for example, can markedly change the case outcome. The clause means the insurer must have the doctor’s approval to settle the case. Absent the clause, insurers generally have authority to settle all claims arising under the policy.

Other contracts may include a “hammer clause,” Dr. Segal notes. This gives doctors the ultimate vote on settling, but it stipulates that if the physician refuses a settlement offer and opts for trial, the doctor is responsible for any surplus award, should the doctor lose.

In Dr. Minkina’s case, the doctor’s contract allowed ProMutual to settle without her consent, but the contract was silent on allocations.

Dr. Segal and Mr. Moore both said the odds of Dr. Minkina prevailing are fairly low. In another case, a South Carolina doctor similarly sued the South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Joint Underwriting Association over an allocation of liability following a settlement. The doctor claimed he should not be assigned any portion of the $500,000 settlement, and he sued after his insurer assigned him one-seventh liability.

A trial court found in his favor, ruling the insurer breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to treat each physician equally when determining liability. The Supreme Court of South Carolina in 2001 overturned that decision, finding the evidence did not support a bad faith finding and that the insurer’s allocation decision was reasonable.

If the Massachusetts case ends in Dr. Minkina’s favor, it will be as a result of strong evidence that the insurer placed its interests ahead of the physician’s financial and other interests, Mr. Moore said.

“If that happens, I anticipate that insurers may revise their standard policy provisions to clarify and limit the extent to which physicians have the right to be involved in allocation decisions,” he said.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]