CHEST Physician

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For decades, scientists have been trying to unravel the mysteries of restless legs syndrome (RLS), a poorly understood and underdiagnosed neurological disorder causing itching, crawling, and aching sensations in the limbs that can only be relieved with movement.

A sweeping new genetic study, coauthored by an international team of 70 — including the world’s leading RLS experts — marks a significant advance in that pursuit. Published in Nature Genetics, it is the largest genetic study of the disease to date.

“It’s a huge step forward for patients as well as the scientific community,” said lead author Juliane Winkelmann, MD, a neurologist and geneticist with the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, who’s been studying and treating patients with RLS for 30 years. “We believe it will allow us to better predict the likelihood of developing RLS and investigate new ways to prevent and modify it.”

The common condition, affecting about 1 in 10 adults, was first described centuries ago — by English physician Thomas Willis in the late 1600s. And while we know a lot more about it today — it’s familial in about half of all patients and has been linked to iron deficiency, among other conditions — its exact cause remains unknown.

With preferred drugs long prescribed to quell symptoms shown in recent years to actually worsen the disorder over time, doctors and patients are hungry for alternatives to treat or prevent the sleep-sabotaging condition.

“The main treatments that everybody continues to use are actually making people worse,” said Andrew Berkowski, MD, a Michigan-based neurologist and RLS specialist not involved in the study. These drugs — dopamine agonists such as levodopa and pramipexole — can also potentially cause drug dependence, Dr. Berkowski said.
 

How This Could Lead to New Treatments

In the new study, the group analyzed three genome-wide association studies, collectively including genetic information from 116,647 patients with RLS and more than 1.5 million people without it.

They identified 161 gene regions believed to contribute to RLS, about a dozen of which are already targets for existing drugs for other conditions. Previously, scientists knew of only 22 associated genes.

“It’s useful in that it identifies new genes we haven’t looked at yet and reinforces the science behind some of the older genes,” said Dr. Berkowski. “It’s given us some ideas for different things we should look into more closely.”

Among the top candidates are genes that influence glutamate — a key chemical messenger that helps move signals between nerve cells in the brain.

Several anticonvulsant and antiseizure drugs, including perampanel, lamotrigine, and gabapentin, target glutamate receptors. And at least one small study has shown perampanel prescribed off-label can improve RLS symptoms.

“Compared to starting at the beginning and developing an entirely new chemical entity, we could run clinical trials using these alternatives in RLS patients,” said the study’s first author, Steven Bell, PhD, an epidemiologist with the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

The study also confirmed the MIES1 gene, which is related to dopamine expression and iron homeostasis, as a key genetic contributor to RLS risk. Low levels of iron in the blood have long been thought to trigger RLS.
 

The Role of Gene-Environment Interactions

Through additional data analysis, the team confirmed that many of the genes associated with RLS play a role in development of the central nervous system.

“This strongly supports the hypothesis that restless legs syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that develops during the embryo stage but doesn’t clinically manifest until later in life,” said Dr. Winkelmann.

About half of people with RLS report some family history of it.

But not all with a genetic predisposition will develop symptoms.

For instance, the study found that while the same gene regions seem to be associated with risk in both men and women, in practice, RLS is twice as common among women. This suggests that something about women’s lives — menstruation, childbirth, metabolism — may switch a preexisting risk into a reality.

“We know that genetic factors play an important role in making people susceptible to the disease,” said Dr. Winkelmann, “but in the end, it is the interaction between genetic and environmental factors that may lead to its manifestation.”

The study also found associations between RLS and depression and suggests that RLS may increase the risk for type 2 diabetes.
 

Improving RLS Care

A potentially useful tool coming out of the study was a “polygenic risk score,” which the researchers developed based on the genes identified. When they tested how accurately the score could predict whether someone would develop RLS within the next 5 years, the model got it right about 90% of the time.

Dr. Winkelmann imagines a day when someone could use such a polygenic risk score to flag the high risk for RLS early enough to take action to try to prevent it. More research is necessary to determine precisely what that action would be.

As for treatments, Dr. Berkowski thinks it’s unlikely that doctors will suddenly begin using existing, glutamate-targeting drugs off-label to treat RLS, as many are prohibitively expensive and wouldn’t be covered by insurance. But he’s optimistic that the study can spawn new research that could ultimately help fill the treatment gap.

Shalini Paruthi, MD, an adjunct professor at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, and chair of the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation’s board of directors, sees another benefit.

“The associations found in this study between RLS and other medical disorders may help patients and their physicians take RLS more seriously,” Dr. Paruthi said, “as treating RLS can lead to multiple other downstream improvements in their health.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.