Neil Skolnik, MD

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik, and today I am going to talk about the 2023 update to the Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. We treat a lot of asthma, and there are some important changes, particularly around the use of albuterol. There are two main guidelines when it comes to asthma, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines. While I had the privilege of serving on the expert working group for the US guidelines, what I like about the GINA guidelines is that they are updated annually, and so they really help us keep up with rapid changes in the field.

Today, I’m going to focus on assessment and treatment.
 

Four Questions to Assess Asthma Control

Because over half of patients with asthma are not well controlled, it is important to assess control at every asthma visit. Asthma control has two domains: symptom control and the risk for future exacerbations. It is not enough to simply ask, “How is your asthma?” because many patients overrate their control and live with ongoing symptoms. There are many assessment tools; the Asthma Control Test (ACT) focuses on symptoms, and the new Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) assesses both symptoms and risk for exacerbations. The GINA assessment is probably the easiest to implement, with just four questions relevant to the past 4 weeks:

• Have you had daytime symptoms more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any night waking due to asthma?
• Have you needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), such as albuterol, rescue more than twice in one week?
• Have you had any activity limitation due to asthma?

Well-controlled asthma is defined as a negative response to all four of these questions, partly controlled asthma is one or two “yes” answers, and uncontrolled asthma is three to four positive responses. You can’t modify a patient’s therapy if you don’t know whether their asthma is well or poorly controlled. You’ll notice that these questions focus on symptom control. It is important also to ask about risk factors for exacerbations, particularly previous exacerbations.
 

Asthma Treatment Changes

The goals of treatment are control of symptoms and avoidance of exacerbations. The GINA guidelines emphasize that even patients with mild asthma can have severe or fatal exacerbations.

GINA recommends two management tracks. The preferred track uses inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Track 2, without the use of ICS-formoterol for MART, is also offered, recognizing that the use of ICS-formoterol for MART is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. There is an easy-to-follow stepped-care diagram that is worth looking at; it’s on page 66 of the GINA guideline PDF.

For patients who have symptoms less than twice a month, begin with Step 1 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol.
• Track 2: treatment with albuterol; also use ICS whenever albuterol is used.

For patients with symptoms more than twice a month (but not most days of the week) treatment can start with Step 2 therapy:

• Track 1: as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol
• Track 2: daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA

An option for rescue therapy for Track 2 across all steps of therapy is to use an ICS whenever a SABA is used for rescue to reduce the likelihood of exacerbation.

For patients with more severe asthma symptoms most days of the week, or whose asthma is waking them from sleep one or more times weekly, then you can start with Step 3 therapy as follows:

• Track 1: low dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: low-dose ICS with long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) for maintenance, plus as needed SABA or as needed ICS-SABA

That’s going to cover most of our patients. As we see people back, if escalation of therapy is needed, then Step 4 therapy is:

• Track 1: medium-dose ICS-formoterol as MART
• Track 2: medium-dose ICS-LABA plus as needed SABA or as-needed ICS-SABA

For patients who remain uncontrolled, it’s important to realize that Step 5 gives you the option to add a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In my experience this can be very helpful. We can also consider going to high-dose ICS-LABS for maintenance. At this step, the patient usually has pretty severe, uncontrolled asthma and we can think about checking eosinophil counts, ordering pulmonary function tests, and referring to our specialist colleagues for consideration of biologic therapy.

It is important to see patients back regularly, and to assess asthma control. If a patient is not well controlled or has had exacerbations, consider stepping up therapy, or changing from albuterol alone as rescue to albuterol plus ICS for rescue. If they have been well controlled for a long time, consider de-escalation of therapy among patients on one of the higher therapy steps.

Dr. Skolnik has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck; and Bayer; serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline. Received research grant from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bayer; and received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today we are going to talk about the American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated Beers Criteria guidance for medication use in older adults. These criteria have been updated and revised approximately every 5 years since 1991 and serve to alert us to medications for which the risk-benefit ratio is not as good in older adults as in the rest of the population.

These are important criteria because medications are metabolized differently in older adults and have different effects compared with younger patients. For the sake of these criteria, older adults are 65 years of age or older. That said, we know that everyone from 65 to 100 is not the same. As people age, they develop more comorbidities, they become more frail, and they are more sensitive to the effects and side effects of drugs.

The guidance covers potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. The word “potentially” is important because this is guidance. As clinicians, we make decisions involving individuals. This guidance should be used with judgment, integrating the clinical context of the individual patient.

There is a lot in this guidance. I am going to try to cover what I feel are the most important points.

Aspirin. Since the risk for major bleeding increases with age, for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the harm can be greater than the benefit in older adults, so aspirin should not be used for primary prevention. Aspirin remains indicated for secondary prevention in individuals with established cardiovascular disease.

Warfarin. For treatment of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism), warfarin should be avoided if possible. Warfarin has a higher risk for major bleeding, particularly intracranial bleeding, than direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs); therefore the latter are preferred. Rivaroxaban should be avoided, as it has a higher risk for major bleeding in older adults than the other DOACs. Apixaban is preferred over dabigatran. If a patient is well controlled on warfarin, you can consider continuing that treatment.

Antipsychotics. These include first- and second-generation antipsychotics such as aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and others. The guidance says to avoid these agents except for FDA-approved indications such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and adjuvant treatment of depression. Use of these antipsychotics can increase risk for stroke, heart attack, and mortality. Essentially, the guidance says do not use these medications lightly for the treatment of agitated dementia. For those of us with older patients, this can get tricky because agitated dementia is a difficult issue for which there are no good effective medications. The Beers guidance recognizes this in saying that these medications should be avoided unless behavioral interventions have failed. So, there are times where you may need to use these medicines, but use them judiciously.

For patients with dementia, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines should be avoided if possible.

Benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines should also be avoided because older adults have increased sensitivity to their effects due to slower metabolism and clearance of these medications, which can lead to a much longer half-life and higher serum level. In older adults, benzodiazepines increase the risk for cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and even motor accidents. The same concerns affect the group of non-benzodiazepine sleeping medicines known as “Z-drugs.”

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Used frequently in our practices, NSAIDs are nevertheless on the list. As we think through the risk-benefit ratio of using NSAIDs in older adults, we often underappreciate the risks of these agents. Upper gastrointestinal ulcers with bleeding occur in approximately 1% of patients treated for 3-6 months with an NSAID and in 2%-4% of patients treated for a year. NSAIDs also increase the risk for renal impairment and cardiovascular disease.

Other medications to avoid (if possible). These include:

Sulfonylureas, due to a high risk for hypoglycemia. A short-acting sulfonylurea, such as glipizide, should be used if one is needed.

Proton pump inhibitors should not be used long-term if it can be avoided.

Digoxin should not be first-line treatment for atrial fibrillation or heart failure. Decreased renal clearance in older adults can lead to toxic levels of digoxin, particularly during acute illnesses. Avoid doses > 0.125 mg/day.

Nitrofurantoin should be avoided when the patient’s creatinine clearance is < 30 or for long-term suppressive therapy.

Avoid combining medications that have high anticholinergic side effects, such as scopolamine, diphenhydramine, oxybutynin, cyclobenzaprine, and others.

It is always important to understand the benefits and the risks of the drugs we prescribe. It is also important to remember that older adults are a particularly vulnerable population. The Beers criteria provide important guidance, which we can then use to make decisions about medicines for individual patients.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director in the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

164939_table_web.jpg

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

164939_table_web.jpg

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Today, I’m going to talk about the 2023 Food and Drug Administration regulation that requires breast density to be reported on all mammogram results nationwide, and for that report to go to both clinicians and patients. Previously this was the rule in some states, but not in others. This is important because 40%-50% of women have dense breasts. I’m going to discuss what that means for you, and for our patients.

First I’ll review what breast density is, and how it is categorized and reported, and then why it’s important and what to do with the results.

Breast density describes the appearance of the breast on mammography. Appearance varies on the basis of breast tissue composition, with fibroglandular tissue being more dense than fatty tissue. Breast density is important because it relates to both the risk for cancer and the ability of mammography to detect cancer.

Breast density is defined and classified according to the American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS four-category scale. Categories 1 and 2 refer to breast tissue that is not dense, accounting for about 50% of the population. Categories 3 and 4 describe heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast tissue, which occur in approximately 40% and 50% of women, respectively. When speaking about dense breast tissue readings on mammography, we are referring to categories 3 and 4.

Women with dense breast tissue have an increased risk of developing breast cancer and are less likely to have early breast cancer detected on mammography.

Let’s go over the details by category:

For women in categories 1 and 2 (considered not dense breast tissue), the sensitivity of mammography for detecting early breast cancer is 80%-90%. In categories 3 and 4, the sensitivity of mammography drops to 60%-70%.

Compared with women with average breast density, the risk of developing breast cancer is 20% higher in women with BI-RADS category 3 breasts, and more than twice as high (relative risk, 2.1) in those with BI-RADS category 4 breasts. Thus, the risk of developing breast cancer is higher, but the sensitivity of the test is lower.

164939_table_web.jpg

Neil Skolnik, MD, is a professor, department of family medicine, at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pennsylvania) Jefferson Health.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the 2023 American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). The incidence of HFpEF is increasing, yet it’s underrecognized. Now that there are evidence-based treatment approaches that improve outcomes, we’ve started to look for this condition and are diagnosing it more often. HFpEF is commonly encountered in primary care.

We should be thinking about HFpEF when we see adults with shortness of breath and/or fatigue and reduced exercise capacity, particularly in the settings of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes. It may not be simple deconditioning; it could be HFpEF.  

I’ll organize this discussion into three topics: when to think about HFpEF, how to diagnosis it. and how to treat it.

When to think about HFpEF. When we see a person with risk factors (e.g., older age, obesity, diabetes, hypertension) experiencing dyspnea or fatigue with physical activity, their symptoms are not always from simple deconditioning. HFpEF should be on our differential as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Making the diagnosis. HFpEF is defined as a clinical diagnosis of HR with left ventricular EF (LVEF) greater than 50%. Remember, in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), the EF is less than 40%, and the EF in midrange HF is 40%-50%. See this recent HF review for more details on reduced and midrange ejection fractions.

For practical purposes, to diagnose HFpEF, check for an elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic  peptide (NT-proBNP) (> 125 pg/mL) and evidence of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiogram. Be aware that patients with obesity and HFpEF have lower BNP concentrations than those without obesity, and one professional society has suggested that a 50% reduction in BNP cutoff values should be used when making the diagnosis in patients with obesity.

Of course, we evaluate for other causes of dyspnea and/or edema including lung (most commonly COPD), liver, or kidney disease. When the diagnosis of HFpEF is made, consider whether further evaluation is warranted for specific underlying causes of HFpEF, such as amyloidosis, sarcoid, hemochromatosis, or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment. The evolution of the management of HFpEF has been intriguing. I recommend that people take a look at the guidelines and read the supporting trials. Finding effective therapies has taken longer than it did for HFrEF, but finally, an effective therapy for HFpEF is available.

To quote the guidelines, diuretics should be used “judiciously as needed” to reduce pulmonary congestion and improve symptoms. But here’s the big deal. The mainstays of treatment for HFpEF are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on the basis of the findings of two trials: DELIVER (dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Preserved (empagliflozin), both of which have shown very impressive levels of benefit.

Both trials lasted a little over 2 years and found a statistically significant approximately 30% decline in HF hospitalizations and a numerical reduction of about 10% in cardiovascular death, which was statistically significant in meta-analysis. That’s over 2 years! That’s a large level of effect. They also showed improvements in symptoms and health status. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors are first-line treatment for all individuals with HFpEF, currently graded as a Class 2a (moderate) recommendation, but likely soon to be upgraded to Class 1 (strong) recommendation.

After the SGLT2 inhibitors, treatment is based on evidence which is not as strong and the recommendations are graded as Class 2b (weak) recommendations. In men with an LVEF less than 55%-60% and for women with any EF, use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist (MRA), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, or if an ARN inhibitor is not feasible, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may be considered.

Nonpharmacologic management is also important. Exercise and weight loss (if the patient is overweight) can improve symptoms and quality of life. A new intervention, an implantable ambulatory pulmonary artery sensor, called CardioMEMS, has been evaluated in two trials, showing a decrease in HF hospitalizations. This may be considered for those who experience hospitalizations for HF and continue to experience New York Heart Association functional Class 3 symptoms despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy or those who have lability in volume status or other medical problems (such as obesity or COPD) that make it difficult to tell whether their symptoms are from HFpEF or a comorbid condition.

In summary:

• Have a low threshold to evaluate for HFpEF in any patients who have shortness of breath, fatigue with exertion, or fluid overload.
• Initially evaluate with an NT-proBNP level and an echocardiogram.
• First-line treatment is an evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor along with exercise and perhaps weight loss if needed. A loop diuretic can be used as needed to control volume status. Then you can consider, based on symptoms and details discussed above, an MRA, ARN inhibitor, or ARB.

This is important information for a diagnosis that is common in primary care, HFpEF, and for which we now have impressive, effective treatment.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim; Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the 2023 American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). The incidence of HFpEF is increasing, yet it’s underrecognized. Now that there are evidence-based treatment approaches that improve outcomes, we’ve started to look for this condition and are diagnosing it more often. HFpEF is commonly encountered in primary care.

We should be thinking about HFpEF when we see adults with shortness of breath and/or fatigue and reduced exercise capacity, particularly in the settings of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes. It may not be simple deconditioning; it could be HFpEF.  

I’ll organize this discussion into three topics: when to think about HFpEF, how to diagnosis it. and how to treat it.

When to think about HFpEF. When we see a person with risk factors (e.g., older age, obesity, diabetes, hypertension) experiencing dyspnea or fatigue with physical activity, their symptoms are not always from simple deconditioning. HFpEF should be on our differential as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Making the diagnosis. HFpEF is defined as a clinical diagnosis of HR with left ventricular EF (LVEF) greater than 50%. Remember, in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), the EF is less than 40%, and the EF in midrange HF is 40%-50%. See this recent HF review for more details on reduced and midrange ejection fractions.

For practical purposes, to diagnose HFpEF, check for an elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic  peptide (NT-proBNP) (> 125 pg/mL) and evidence of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiogram. Be aware that patients with obesity and HFpEF have lower BNP concentrations than those without obesity, and one professional society has suggested that a 50% reduction in BNP cutoff values should be used when making the diagnosis in patients with obesity.

Of course, we evaluate for other causes of dyspnea and/or edema including lung (most commonly COPD), liver, or kidney disease. When the diagnosis of HFpEF is made, consider whether further evaluation is warranted for specific underlying causes of HFpEF, such as amyloidosis, sarcoid, hemochromatosis, or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment. The evolution of the management of HFpEF has been intriguing. I recommend that people take a look at the guidelines and read the supporting trials. Finding effective therapies has taken longer than it did for HFrEF, but finally, an effective therapy for HFpEF is available.

To quote the guidelines, diuretics should be used “judiciously as needed” to reduce pulmonary congestion and improve symptoms. But here’s the big deal. The mainstays of treatment for HFpEF are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on the basis of the findings of two trials: DELIVER (dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Preserved (empagliflozin), both of which have shown very impressive levels of benefit.

Both trials lasted a little over 2 years and found a statistically significant approximately 30% decline in HF hospitalizations and a numerical reduction of about 10% in cardiovascular death, which was statistically significant in meta-analysis. That’s over 2 years! That’s a large level of effect. They also showed improvements in symptoms and health status. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors are first-line treatment for all individuals with HFpEF, currently graded as a Class 2a (moderate) recommendation, but likely soon to be upgraded to Class 1 (strong) recommendation.

After the SGLT2 inhibitors, treatment is based on evidence which is not as strong and the recommendations are graded as Class 2b (weak) recommendations. In men with an LVEF less than 55%-60% and for women with any EF, use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist (MRA), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, or if an ARN inhibitor is not feasible, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may be considered.

Nonpharmacologic management is also important. Exercise and weight loss (if the patient is overweight) can improve symptoms and quality of life. A new intervention, an implantable ambulatory pulmonary artery sensor, called CardioMEMS, has been evaluated in two trials, showing a decrease in HF hospitalizations. This may be considered for those who experience hospitalizations for HF and continue to experience New York Heart Association functional Class 3 symptoms despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy or those who have lability in volume status or other medical problems (such as obesity or COPD) that make it difficult to tell whether their symptoms are from HFpEF or a comorbid condition.

In summary:

• Have a low threshold to evaluate for HFpEF in any patients who have shortness of breath, fatigue with exertion, or fluid overload.
• Initially evaluate with an NT-proBNP level and an echocardiogram.
• First-line treatment is an evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor along with exercise and perhaps weight loss if needed. A loop diuretic can be used as needed to control volume status. Then you can consider, based on symptoms and details discussed above, an MRA, ARN inhibitor, or ARB.

This is important information for a diagnosis that is common in primary care, HFpEF, and for which we now have impressive, effective treatment.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim; Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the 2023 American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). The incidence of HFpEF is increasing, yet it’s underrecognized. Now that there are evidence-based treatment approaches that improve outcomes, we’ve started to look for this condition and are diagnosing it more often. HFpEF is commonly encountered in primary care.

We should be thinking about HFpEF when we see adults with shortness of breath and/or fatigue and reduced exercise capacity, particularly in the settings of obesity, hypertension, or diabetes. It may not be simple deconditioning; it could be HFpEF.  

I’ll organize this discussion into three topics: when to think about HFpEF, how to diagnosis it. and how to treat it.

When to think about HFpEF. When we see a person with risk factors (e.g., older age, obesity, diabetes, hypertension) experiencing dyspnea or fatigue with physical activity, their symptoms are not always from simple deconditioning. HFpEF should be on our differential as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Making the diagnosis. HFpEF is defined as a clinical diagnosis of HR with left ventricular EF (LVEF) greater than 50%. Remember, in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), the EF is less than 40%, and the EF in midrange HF is 40%-50%. See this recent HF review for more details on reduced and midrange ejection fractions.

For practical purposes, to diagnose HFpEF, check for an elevated N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic  peptide (NT-proBNP) (> 125 pg/mL) and evidence of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiogram. Be aware that patients with obesity and HFpEF have lower BNP concentrations than those without obesity, and one professional society has suggested that a 50% reduction in BNP cutoff values should be used when making the diagnosis in patients with obesity.

Of course, we evaluate for other causes of dyspnea and/or edema including lung (most commonly COPD), liver, or kidney disease. When the diagnosis of HFpEF is made, consider whether further evaluation is warranted for specific underlying causes of HFpEF, such as amyloidosis, sarcoid, hemochromatosis, or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment. The evolution of the management of HFpEF has been intriguing. I recommend that people take a look at the guidelines and read the supporting trials. Finding effective therapies has taken longer than it did for HFrEF, but finally, an effective therapy for HFpEF is available.

To quote the guidelines, diuretics should be used “judiciously as needed” to reduce pulmonary congestion and improve symptoms. But here’s the big deal. The mainstays of treatment for HFpEF are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on the basis of the findings of two trials: DELIVER (dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Preserved (empagliflozin), both of which have shown very impressive levels of benefit.

Both trials lasted a little over 2 years and found a statistically significant approximately 30% decline in HF hospitalizations and a numerical reduction of about 10% in cardiovascular death, which was statistically significant in meta-analysis. That’s over 2 years! That’s a large level of effect. They also showed improvements in symptoms and health status. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors are first-line treatment for all individuals with HFpEF, currently graded as a Class 2a (moderate) recommendation, but likely soon to be upgraded to Class 1 (strong) recommendation.

After the SGLT2 inhibitors, treatment is based on evidence which is not as strong and the recommendations are graded as Class 2b (weak) recommendations. In men with an LVEF less than 55%-60% and for women with any EF, use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist (MRA), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, or if an ARN inhibitor is not feasible, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) may be considered.

Nonpharmacologic management is also important. Exercise and weight loss (if the patient is overweight) can improve symptoms and quality of life. A new intervention, an implantable ambulatory pulmonary artery sensor, called CardioMEMS, has been evaluated in two trials, showing a decrease in HF hospitalizations. This may be considered for those who experience hospitalizations for HF and continue to experience New York Heart Association functional Class 3 symptoms despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy or those who have lability in volume status or other medical problems (such as obesity or COPD) that make it difficult to tell whether their symptoms are from HFpEF or a comorbid condition.

In summary:

• Have a low threshold to evaluate for HFpEF in any patients who have shortness of breath, fatigue with exertion, or fluid overload.
• Initially evaluate with an NT-proBNP level and an echocardiogram.
• First-line treatment is an evidence-based SGLT2 inhibitor along with exercise and perhaps weight loss if needed. A loop diuretic can be used as needed to control volume status. Then you can consider, based on symptoms and details discussed above, an MRA, ARN inhibitor, or ARB.

This is important information for a diagnosis that is common in primary care, HFpEF, and for which we now have impressive, effective treatment.

Dr. Skolnik is a professor in the department of family medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the department of family medicine at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim; Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today’s topic is the new osteoporosis treatment guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians (ACP). The focus of the guidelines is treatment of osteoporosis. But first, I want to discuss screening.

In its 2018 statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that osteoporosis should be screened for in women older than 65 years of age, and those who are younger who are at increased risk based on a risk assessment tool (usually the FRAX tool). There is not enough evidence to weigh in for or against screening men. The other large organization that weighs in on screening is the Bone Health & Osteoporosis Foundation, which agrees with the USPSTF, but in addition says that we should be screening men over age 70 and men who are younger (age 50 to 69) who have risk factors. We should also screen anyone who has a fracture after low impact or no trauma.

Let’s now go on to the ACP treatment guidelines. Osteoporosis is defined as bone mineral density at the femoral neck or the lumbar spine, or both, with a T score less than -2.5.

For postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, you should use a bisphosphonate as first-line treatment to reduce the risk for future fractures. This is given a strong recommendation based on a high certainty of evidence. Bisphosphonates vs. placebo over 3 years leads to one fewer hip fracture per 150 patients treated and one fewer vertebral fracture per 50 people treated.

All the other recommendations in the guidelines are considered “conditional recommendations” that are correct for most people. But whether they make sense for an individual patient depends upon other details, as well as their values and preferences. For instance, treatment of osteoporosis in men is given a conditional recommendation, not because the evidence suggests that it’s not as effective, but because there is not as much evidence. Initial treatment for a man with osteoporosis is with bisphosphonates. Men do get osteoporosis and account for about 30% of hip fractures. This is not a surprise to anyone who takes care of older adults.

For postmenopausal women or men who you would want to treat but who can’t tolerate a bisphosphonate, then the recommendation is to use a RANK ligand inhibitor. Denosumab can be used as second-line treatment to reduce the risk for fractures. Remember, bisphosphonates and denosumab are antiresorptive drugs, meaning they slow the progression of osteoporosis. The anabolic drugs, on the other hand, such as the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab and recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH) teriparatide, increase bone density. The anabolic agents should be used only in women with primary osteoporosis who are at very high risk for fractures, and use of these agents always needs to be followed by an antiresorptive agent, because otherwise there’s a risk for rebound osteoporosis and an increased risk for vertebral fractures.

Now, how about osteopenia? The guidelines recommend that for women over 65 with osteopenia, use an individualized approach influenced by the level of risk for fracture, including increased age, low body weight, current smoking, hip fracture in a parent, fall risk, and a personal history of fracture. The guidelines note that increasing the duration of bisphosphonate therapy beyond 3-5 years does reduce the risk for new vertebral fractures, but it doesn’t reduce the risk for other fractures and it increases the risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical hip fractures. Therefore, the guidelines say that we should use bisphosphonates only for 3-5 years unless someone is at extremely high risk. It’s also important to note that there’s a fivefold higher risk for atypical femoral fractures among Asian women.

Don’t forget about adequate vitamin D and calcium. And most importantly, don’t forget about exercise, particularly exercise aimed at improving balance and quadriceps strength, which helps prevent falls.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, and Teva.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we’re going to talk about the consensus report by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes on the management of hyperglycemia.

A lot has changed in this consensus statement. It covers a lot of ground. We’re going to focus today on pharmacologic management.

After lifestyle modifications, metformin is no longer the go-to drug for every patient in the management of hyperglycemia. It is recommended that we assess each patient’s personal characteristics in deciding what medication to prescribe. For patients at high cardiorenal risk, refer to the left side of the algorithm and to the right side for all other patients.

161052_graphic_web.jpg

• Very high efficacy for glucose lowering: dulaglutide at a high dose, semaglutide, tirzepatide, insulin, or combination injectable agents (GLP-1 receptor agonist/insulin combinations).
• High glucose-lowering efficacy: a GLP-1 receptor agonist not already mentioned, metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones.
• Intermediate glucose lowering efficacy: dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Weight management. For weight management, lifestyle modification (diet and exercise) is important. If lifestyle modification alone is insufficient, consider either a medication that specifically helps with weight management or metabolic surgery.

We particularly want to focus on weight management in patients who have complications from obesity. What would those complications be? Sleep apnea, hip or knee pain from arthritis, back pain – that is, biomechanical complications of obesity or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Medications for weight loss are listed by degree of efficacy:

• Very high efficacy for weight loss: semaglutide, tirzepatide.
• High efficacy for weight loss: dulaglutide and liraglutide.
• Intermediate for weight loss: GLP-1 receptor agonist (not listed above), SGLT-2 inhibitor.
• Neutral for weight loss: DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin.

Where does insulin fit in? If patients present with a very high A1c, if they are on other medications and their A1c is still not to goal, or if they are catabolic and losing weight because of their diabetes, then insulin has an important place in management.

These are incredibly important guidelines that provide a clear algorithm for a personalized approach to diabetes management.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we’re going to talk about the consensus report by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes on the management of hyperglycemia.

A lot has changed in this consensus statement. It covers a lot of ground. We’re going to focus today on pharmacologic management.

After lifestyle modifications, metformin is no longer the go-to drug for every patient in the management of hyperglycemia. It is recommended that we assess each patient’s personal characteristics in deciding what medication to prescribe. For patients at high cardiorenal risk, refer to the left side of the algorithm and to the right side for all other patients.

161052_graphic_web.jpg

• Very high efficacy for glucose lowering: dulaglutide at a high dose, semaglutide, tirzepatide, insulin, or combination injectable agents (GLP-1 receptor agonist/insulin combinations).
• High glucose-lowering efficacy: a GLP-1 receptor agonist not already mentioned, metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones.
• Intermediate glucose lowering efficacy: dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Weight management. For weight management, lifestyle modification (diet and exercise) is important. If lifestyle modification alone is insufficient, consider either a medication that specifically helps with weight management or metabolic surgery.

We particularly want to focus on weight management in patients who have complications from obesity. What would those complications be? Sleep apnea, hip or knee pain from arthritis, back pain – that is, biomechanical complications of obesity or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Medications for weight loss are listed by degree of efficacy:

• Very high efficacy for weight loss: semaglutide, tirzepatide.
• High efficacy for weight loss: dulaglutide and liraglutide.
• Intermediate for weight loss: GLP-1 receptor agonist (not listed above), SGLT-2 inhibitor.
• Neutral for weight loss: DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin.

Where does insulin fit in? If patients present with a very high A1c, if they are on other medications and their A1c is still not to goal, or if they are catabolic and losing weight because of their diabetes, then insulin has an important place in management.

These are incredibly important guidelines that provide a clear algorithm for a personalized approach to diabetes management.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we’re going to talk about the consensus report by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes on the management of hyperglycemia.

A lot has changed in this consensus statement. It covers a lot of ground. We’re going to focus today on pharmacologic management.

After lifestyle modifications, metformin is no longer the go-to drug for every patient in the management of hyperglycemia. It is recommended that we assess each patient’s personal characteristics in deciding what medication to prescribe. For patients at high cardiorenal risk, refer to the left side of the algorithm and to the right side for all other patients.

161052_graphic_web.jpg

• Very high efficacy for glucose lowering: dulaglutide at a high dose, semaglutide, tirzepatide, insulin, or combination injectable agents (GLP-1 receptor agonist/insulin combinations).
• High glucose-lowering efficacy: a GLP-1 receptor agonist not already mentioned, metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones.
• Intermediate glucose lowering efficacy: dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Weight management. For weight management, lifestyle modification (diet and exercise) is important. If lifestyle modification alone is insufficient, consider either a medication that specifically helps with weight management or metabolic surgery.

We particularly want to focus on weight management in patients who have complications from obesity. What would those complications be? Sleep apnea, hip or knee pain from arthritis, back pain – that is, biomechanical complications of obesity or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Medications for weight loss are listed by degree of efficacy:

• Very high efficacy for weight loss: semaglutide, tirzepatide.
• High efficacy for weight loss: dulaglutide and liraglutide.
• Intermediate for weight loss: GLP-1 receptor agonist (not listed above), SGLT-2 inhibitor.
• Neutral for weight loss: DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin.

Where does insulin fit in? If patients present with a very high A1c, if they are on other medications and their A1c is still not to goal, or if they are catabolic and losing weight because of their diabetes, then insulin has an important place in management.

These are incredibly important guidelines that provide a clear algorithm for a personalized approach to diabetes management.
 

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Skolnik_Neil_Abington_2020_web.jpg

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Notte_Christopher_2021_web.jpg

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

[embed:render:related:node:191855]

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Skolnik_Neil_Abington_2020_web.jpg

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Notte_Christopher_2021_web.jpg

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

[embed:render:related:node:191855]

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

On this occasion of writing our last of a decade of tech columns, we want to take the time to emphasize that our collective excitement about medical technology should never eclipse the reason for which it is created: to facilitate high-quality care.

Skolnik_Neil_Abington_2020_web.jpg

Indeed, science and technology provide opportunities to improve outcomes in ways not even imagined 100 years ago, yet we must acknowledge that technology also threatens to erect barriers between us and our patients. We can be easily tempted to confuse new care delivery tools with the actual care itself.

Notte_Christopher_2021_web.jpg

Threats to the physician-patient relationship

Medical history provides many examples of how our zeal to innovate can have untoward consequences to the physician-patient relationship.

In the late 1800s, for example, to convey a sense of science, purity of intent, and trust, the medical community began wearing white coats. Those white coats have been discussed as creating emotional distance between physicians and their patients.¹

Even when we in the medical community are slow and reluctant to change, the external forces propelling us forward often seem unstoppable; kinetic aspirations to innovate electronic information systems and new applications seem suddenly to revolutionize care delivery when we least expect it. The rapidity of change in technology can sometimes be dizzying but can at the same time can occur so swiftly we don’t even notice it.

After René Laennec invented the stethoscope in the early 1800s, clinicians no longer needed to physically lean in and place an ear directly onto patients to hear their hearts beating. This created a distance from patients that was still lamented 50 years later, when a professor of medicine is reported to have said, “he that hath ears to hear, let him use his ears and not a stethoscope.” Still, while the stethoscope has literally distanced us from patients, it is such an important tool that we no longer think about this distancing. We have adapted over time to remain close to our patients, to sincerely listen to their thoughts and reassure them that we hear them without the need to feel our ears on their chests.

[embed:render:related:node:191855]

Francis Peabody, the eminent Harvard physician, wrote an essay in 1927 titled, “The Care of the Patient.” At the end of the first paragraph, he states: “The most common criticism made at present by older practitioners is that young graduates ... are too “scientific” and do not know how to take care of patients.” He goes on to say that “one of the essential qualities of the clinician is interest in humanity, for the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.”²

We agree with Dr. Peabody. As we embrace science and technology that can change health outcomes, our patients’ needs to feel understood and cared for will not diminish. Instead, that need will continue to be an important aspect of our struggle and joy in providing holistic, humane, competent care into the future.

Twenty-first century physicians have access to an ever-growing trove of data, yet our ability to truly know our patients seems somehow less accessible. Home health devices have begun to provide a flow of information about parameters, ranging from continuous glucose readings to home blood pressures, weights, and inspiratory flow readings. These data can provide much more accurate insight into patients than what we can glean from one point in time during an office visit. Yet we need to remember that behind the data are people with dreams and desires, not just table entries in an electronic health record.

In 1923, the German philosopher Martin Buber published the book for which he is best known, “I and Thou.” In that book, Mr. Buber says that there are two ways we can approach relationships: “I-Thou” or “I-It.” In I-It relationships, we view the other person as an “it” to be used to accomplish a purpose, or to be experienced without his or her full involvement. In an I-Thou relationship, we appreciate the other people for all their complexity, in their full humanness. We must consciously remind ourselves amid the rush of technology that there are real people behind those data. We must acknowledge and approach each person as a unique individual who has dreams, goals, fears, and wishes that may be different from ours but to which we can still relate.

‘From the Beating End of the Stethoscope’

John Ciardi, an American poet, said the following in a poem titled, “Lines From the Beating End of the Stethoscope”:

I speak, as I say, the patient’s point of view.

But, given time, doctors are patients, too.

And there’s our bond: beyond anatomy,

Or in it, through it, to the mystery

Medicine takes the pulse of and lets go

Forever unexplained. It’s art, we know,

Not science at the heart. Doctor be whole,

I won’t insist the patient is a soul,

But he’s a something, possibly laughable,

Or possibly sublime, but not quite graphable.

Not quite containable on a bed chart.

Where science touches man it turns to art.³

This poem is a reminder of the subtle needs of patients during their encounters with doctors, especially around many of the most important decisions and events in their lives. Patients’ needs are varied, complex, difficult to discern, and not able to be fully explained or understood through math and science.

Einstein warned us that the modern age would be characterized by a perfection of means and a confusion of goals.⁴ As clinicians, we should strive to clarify and align our goals with those of our patients, providing care that is real, compassionate, and personal, not just an optimized means to achieve standardized metrics. While technology can assist us in this pursuit, we’ll need be careful that our enchantment with innovation does not cloud our actual goal: truly caring for our patients.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Jones VA. The white coat: Why not follow suit? JAMA. 1999;281(5):478. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.5.478-JMS0203-5-1

2. Peabody, Francis (1927). “The care of the patient.” JAMA. 88(12):877-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001.

3. Ciardi, John. Lines from the Beating End of the Stethoscope. Saturday Review, Nov. 18, 1968.

4. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, 1950.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Skolnik_Neil_PA_2020_web.jpg

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

Persampiere_Victoria_PA_web.jpg

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Skolnik_Neil_PA_2020_web.jpg

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

Persampiere_Victoria_PA_web.jpg

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Skolnik_Neil_PA_2020_web.jpg

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

Persampiere_Victoria_PA_web.jpg

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at [email protected].

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Skolnik_and_Notte_web.jpg

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Skolnik_and_Notte_web.jpg

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Skolnik_and_Notte_web.jpg

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.