User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Plastic Surgeon Illegally Restricted Negative Reviews, Judge Rules
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.
Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses.
Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial.
This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response.
The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal.
Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson.
“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”
If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.
In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records.
But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.
The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says
Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative.
Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents.
Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents.
In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media.
At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends.
Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson.
The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents.
In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.
All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson.
Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong.
The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show.
“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.
The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation.
Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents.
The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Climate Change’s Impact on Respiratory Care to Increase
Extreme heat, wildfires, and particulate matter not from wildfires were the most studied climate issues in conjunction with increased respiratory care, based on data from more than 60 studies.
Recent local events prompted Dr. Lewy and colleagues to examine the current landscape of climate change studies and respiratory healthcare.
“Last summer, when Canadian wildfire smoke enveloped the Midwest and the East Coast, patients presented with exacerbations of asthma and COPD to our clinics,” corresponding author Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“The event was a reminder of the increasing health threats that our most vulnerable patients face from climate change,” he said. “The smoke events also got us thinking about how health systems around the world are preparing, and we wanted to better understand what is known about the impacts of climate change on healthcare delivery to patients with lung disease and look for blind spots in the research,” he explained.
In the review, published in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, the researchers identified 67 studies related to climate and respiratory care; 50 of these were published between 2020 and 2023.
The most frequently studied climate and weather topics were extreme heat (31 studies), particulate matter not from wildfires (22 studies), and wildfires (19 studies).
The most common respiratory-related outcomes were respiratory-related hospital admissions (33 studies) and respiratory-related emergency department (ED) visits (24 studies).
Few studies addressed the potential impact of climate on telehealth, facility energy distribution, and pharmaceutical supplies, the researchers wrote. Notably, only one study in the review showed an association between power outages in New York City and higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related hospital admission rates, and no primary research emerged on the effects of climate change on respiratory medicine supply or distribution, they said.
Findings from studies with demographic breakdowns included evidence of greater effects of extreme weather on elderly populations compared with younger groups, and data from the seven studies focused on children showed a particular risk for climate-related respiratory exacerbations among those younger than 5 years.
The findings of the review were limited by several factors including the targeted article selection and potential misclassification bias, as respiratory outcomes often overlapped with cardiac or other outcomes, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlighted three key areas for future research. First, more studies are needed on the impact of climate on understudied populations in areas such as Africa, South America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Second, studies are needed on the impact of climate on respiratory care beyond acute care, with attention to primary and specialty respiratory care use, supply chain impacts, and effects on long-term pulmonary care and rehabilitation. Finally, more research is needed to explore solutions to the increased demands on pulmonary care in the context of climate change, including the use of telehealth, the authors wrote.
Limitations and Research Gaps
“While we found extensive published research chronicling the acute respiratory health impacts of climate change and extreme weather, such as heat waves and wildfires, we were surprised to find few studies on health system adaptation,” Dr. Rabin told this news organization.
“Although we know that prevention and long-term disease management are critical, studies looking at primary care impacts on respiratory care, healthcare infrastructure hardening, and medication supply chain resilience were largely absent from the literature,” he said. “We were further struck by the limited amount of research originating from the most climate-affected areas such as in the Global South, where outdoor air pollution already results in over 4 million deaths per year,” he noted.
Although clinicians increasingly recognize that climate change and extreme weather threaten lung health, solutions are needed to make health systems resilient, accessible, and adaptable, especially with the likely increase in demand for respiratory care, Dr. Rabin emphasized.
More research is needed on preventive measures that could mitigate the risk for bad air quality, heat, and other extreme climate change events on vulnerable populations, said Dr. Rabin. “Every domain of healthcare delivery, from pharmaceutical procurement to hospital heating and cooling system design, must account for these environmental changes,” he said. “More collaboration is needed with researchers and clinicians in areas of the world that are underrepresented and underresourced to help share knowledge and tools to build health system resilience.”
Takeaways and Next Steps
“I was struck by how many studies used healthcare metrics as a way to measure health outcomes but not to measure resilience and efficiency of healthcare systems themselves,” Dr. Lewy said in an interview. “For example, many studies used ED visits or hospital admissions as ways to measure severity of disease associated with a climate event, but the strain that increased visits or admissions have on healthcare systems was barely mentioned,” she noted.
Looking ahead, more studies that focus specifically on infrastructure as it relates to healthcare would be valuable, said Dr. Lewy. Recent research has explored virtual care as a way to mitigate climate change-associated COPD exacerbations, but virtual care may not be reliably accessible in cases of the widespread power and network outages that often accompany storms, heat waves, and other catastrophic weather events, she noted. “More research into these types of logistical factors affecting healthcare systems would be helpful,” she added.
Dr. Rabin disclosed support for the study from the US Department of Veterans Affairs but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lewy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Extreme heat, wildfires, and particulate matter not from wildfires were the most studied climate issues in conjunction with increased respiratory care, based on data from more than 60 studies.
Recent local events prompted Dr. Lewy and colleagues to examine the current landscape of climate change studies and respiratory healthcare.
“Last summer, when Canadian wildfire smoke enveloped the Midwest and the East Coast, patients presented with exacerbations of asthma and COPD to our clinics,” corresponding author Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“The event was a reminder of the increasing health threats that our most vulnerable patients face from climate change,” he said. “The smoke events also got us thinking about how health systems around the world are preparing, and we wanted to better understand what is known about the impacts of climate change on healthcare delivery to patients with lung disease and look for blind spots in the research,” he explained.
In the review, published in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, the researchers identified 67 studies related to climate and respiratory care; 50 of these were published between 2020 and 2023.
The most frequently studied climate and weather topics were extreme heat (31 studies), particulate matter not from wildfires (22 studies), and wildfires (19 studies).
The most common respiratory-related outcomes were respiratory-related hospital admissions (33 studies) and respiratory-related emergency department (ED) visits (24 studies).
Few studies addressed the potential impact of climate on telehealth, facility energy distribution, and pharmaceutical supplies, the researchers wrote. Notably, only one study in the review showed an association between power outages in New York City and higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related hospital admission rates, and no primary research emerged on the effects of climate change on respiratory medicine supply or distribution, they said.
Findings from studies with demographic breakdowns included evidence of greater effects of extreme weather on elderly populations compared with younger groups, and data from the seven studies focused on children showed a particular risk for climate-related respiratory exacerbations among those younger than 5 years.
The findings of the review were limited by several factors including the targeted article selection and potential misclassification bias, as respiratory outcomes often overlapped with cardiac or other outcomes, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlighted three key areas for future research. First, more studies are needed on the impact of climate on understudied populations in areas such as Africa, South America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Second, studies are needed on the impact of climate on respiratory care beyond acute care, with attention to primary and specialty respiratory care use, supply chain impacts, and effects on long-term pulmonary care and rehabilitation. Finally, more research is needed to explore solutions to the increased demands on pulmonary care in the context of climate change, including the use of telehealth, the authors wrote.
Limitations and Research Gaps
“While we found extensive published research chronicling the acute respiratory health impacts of climate change and extreme weather, such as heat waves and wildfires, we were surprised to find few studies on health system adaptation,” Dr. Rabin told this news organization.
“Although we know that prevention and long-term disease management are critical, studies looking at primary care impacts on respiratory care, healthcare infrastructure hardening, and medication supply chain resilience were largely absent from the literature,” he said. “We were further struck by the limited amount of research originating from the most climate-affected areas such as in the Global South, where outdoor air pollution already results in over 4 million deaths per year,” he noted.
Although clinicians increasingly recognize that climate change and extreme weather threaten lung health, solutions are needed to make health systems resilient, accessible, and adaptable, especially with the likely increase in demand for respiratory care, Dr. Rabin emphasized.
More research is needed on preventive measures that could mitigate the risk for bad air quality, heat, and other extreme climate change events on vulnerable populations, said Dr. Rabin. “Every domain of healthcare delivery, from pharmaceutical procurement to hospital heating and cooling system design, must account for these environmental changes,” he said. “More collaboration is needed with researchers and clinicians in areas of the world that are underrepresented and underresourced to help share knowledge and tools to build health system resilience.”
Takeaways and Next Steps
“I was struck by how many studies used healthcare metrics as a way to measure health outcomes but not to measure resilience and efficiency of healthcare systems themselves,” Dr. Lewy said in an interview. “For example, many studies used ED visits or hospital admissions as ways to measure severity of disease associated with a climate event, but the strain that increased visits or admissions have on healthcare systems was barely mentioned,” she noted.
Looking ahead, more studies that focus specifically on infrastructure as it relates to healthcare would be valuable, said Dr. Lewy. Recent research has explored virtual care as a way to mitigate climate change-associated COPD exacerbations, but virtual care may not be reliably accessible in cases of the widespread power and network outages that often accompany storms, heat waves, and other catastrophic weather events, she noted. “More research into these types of logistical factors affecting healthcare systems would be helpful,” she added.
Dr. Rabin disclosed support for the study from the US Department of Veterans Affairs but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lewy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Extreme heat, wildfires, and particulate matter not from wildfires were the most studied climate issues in conjunction with increased respiratory care, based on data from more than 60 studies.
Recent local events prompted Dr. Lewy and colleagues to examine the current landscape of climate change studies and respiratory healthcare.
“Last summer, when Canadian wildfire smoke enveloped the Midwest and the East Coast, patients presented with exacerbations of asthma and COPD to our clinics,” corresponding author Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“The event was a reminder of the increasing health threats that our most vulnerable patients face from climate change,” he said. “The smoke events also got us thinking about how health systems around the world are preparing, and we wanted to better understand what is known about the impacts of climate change on healthcare delivery to patients with lung disease and look for blind spots in the research,” he explained.
In the review, published in The Journal of Climate Change and Health, the researchers identified 67 studies related to climate and respiratory care; 50 of these were published between 2020 and 2023.
The most frequently studied climate and weather topics were extreme heat (31 studies), particulate matter not from wildfires (22 studies), and wildfires (19 studies).
The most common respiratory-related outcomes were respiratory-related hospital admissions (33 studies) and respiratory-related emergency department (ED) visits (24 studies).
Few studies addressed the potential impact of climate on telehealth, facility energy distribution, and pharmaceutical supplies, the researchers wrote. Notably, only one study in the review showed an association between power outages in New York City and higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related hospital admission rates, and no primary research emerged on the effects of climate change on respiratory medicine supply or distribution, they said.
Findings from studies with demographic breakdowns included evidence of greater effects of extreme weather on elderly populations compared with younger groups, and data from the seven studies focused on children showed a particular risk for climate-related respiratory exacerbations among those younger than 5 years.
The findings of the review were limited by several factors including the targeted article selection and potential misclassification bias, as respiratory outcomes often overlapped with cardiac or other outcomes, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlighted three key areas for future research. First, more studies are needed on the impact of climate on understudied populations in areas such as Africa, South America, Asia, and the Caribbean. Second, studies are needed on the impact of climate on respiratory care beyond acute care, with attention to primary and specialty respiratory care use, supply chain impacts, and effects on long-term pulmonary care and rehabilitation. Finally, more research is needed to explore solutions to the increased demands on pulmonary care in the context of climate change, including the use of telehealth, the authors wrote.
Limitations and Research Gaps
“While we found extensive published research chronicling the acute respiratory health impacts of climate change and extreme weather, such as heat waves and wildfires, we were surprised to find few studies on health system adaptation,” Dr. Rabin told this news organization.
“Although we know that prevention and long-term disease management are critical, studies looking at primary care impacts on respiratory care, healthcare infrastructure hardening, and medication supply chain resilience were largely absent from the literature,” he said. “We were further struck by the limited amount of research originating from the most climate-affected areas such as in the Global South, where outdoor air pollution already results in over 4 million deaths per year,” he noted.
Although clinicians increasingly recognize that climate change and extreme weather threaten lung health, solutions are needed to make health systems resilient, accessible, and adaptable, especially with the likely increase in demand for respiratory care, Dr. Rabin emphasized.
More research is needed on preventive measures that could mitigate the risk for bad air quality, heat, and other extreme climate change events on vulnerable populations, said Dr. Rabin. “Every domain of healthcare delivery, from pharmaceutical procurement to hospital heating and cooling system design, must account for these environmental changes,” he said. “More collaboration is needed with researchers and clinicians in areas of the world that are underrepresented and underresourced to help share knowledge and tools to build health system resilience.”
Takeaways and Next Steps
“I was struck by how many studies used healthcare metrics as a way to measure health outcomes but not to measure resilience and efficiency of healthcare systems themselves,” Dr. Lewy said in an interview. “For example, many studies used ED visits or hospital admissions as ways to measure severity of disease associated with a climate event, but the strain that increased visits or admissions have on healthcare systems was barely mentioned,” she noted.
Looking ahead, more studies that focus specifically on infrastructure as it relates to healthcare would be valuable, said Dr. Lewy. Recent research has explored virtual care as a way to mitigate climate change-associated COPD exacerbations, but virtual care may not be reliably accessible in cases of the widespread power and network outages that often accompany storms, heat waves, and other catastrophic weather events, she noted. “More research into these types of logistical factors affecting healthcare systems would be helpful,” she added.
Dr. Rabin disclosed support for the study from the US Department of Veterans Affairs but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lewy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs Vent As Feds Investigate Private Equity, Consolidation in Medicine
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.
“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia.
“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”
The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.
The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.
Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.
Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.
Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour.
A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD.
While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view.
“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.
Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”
The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.
“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”
Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”
“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC.
The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wider Waist Increases Risk for Asthma Attacks
A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.
BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma
Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.
The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.
The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks
The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.
The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
Importance of Waist Size
“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.
Limited to Data Available
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.
The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.
BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma
Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.
The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.
The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks
The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.
The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
Importance of Waist Size
“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.
Limited to Data Available
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.
The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent study links waist size and a higher risk for asthma attack. After adjustments, the likelihood of asthma attacks was 1.06 times higher for every 5-cm increase in waist circumference in adults with asthma.
BMI Earlier Tied to Asthma
Previous research supports a link between increased body mass index (BMI) and asthma, but the association between abdominal obesity and asthma attacks has not been well studied.
The researchers in the current study reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 5530 adults with asthma in the United States. Adults in the study were divided into groups based on whether they did or did not experience asthma attacks.
The median age of the study population was 43 years, the median waist circumference was 98.9 cm, and the median BMI was 28.50.
More Waist Inches = Asthma Attacks
The association between increased waist circumference and increased odds of asthma attack was significant across non-adjusted, minimally adjusted, and fully adjusted models (odds ratios, 1.7, 1.06, and 1.06, respectively). In fact, each 5-cm increase in waist circumference was associated with a 1.06 times higher likelihood of an asthma attack after full adjustment for BMI-defined obesity, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, poverty income ratio, smoking status, and metabolic syndrome.
The relationship between increased likelihood of asthma attacks and increased waist circumference persisted in subgroup analyses based on gender, age, and smoking status.
Importance of Waist Size
“Our study underscores the critical role of waist circumference measurements in the routine health evaluations of individuals diagnosed with asthma, highlighting its inclusion as an essential aspect of comprehensive health assessments,” the researchers wrote.
Limited to Data Available
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of existing database questions to evaluate asthma attacks, a lack of data on the specificity of triggers of asthma exacerbations, and an inability to distinguish the severity of asthma attacks.
The study was published online in BMC Public Health. The lead author was Xiang Liu, MD, of Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, China.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
National Mine Safety Group Issues Rule to Reduce Silica Exposure
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has announced a new final rule designed to protect miners from the dangers of exposure to silica dust, according to a press release from the US Department of Labor.
including silicosis, lung cancer, progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis, and kidney disease.
The MSHA final rule reduces the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air for a miner›s full-shift exposure, which was calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. If a miner’s exposure exceeds this limit, mine operators must take immediate action to comply with it, according to the new final rule.
“It is unconscionable that our nation’s miners have worked without adequate protection from silica dust despite it being a known health hazard for decades,” said Department of Labor acting secretary Julie Su, in the press release. “The Department of Labor has taken an important action to finally reduce miners’ exposure to toxic silica dust and protect them from suffering from preventable diseases,” she said.
The final rule requires mine operators to prevent miners’ overexposures by using engineering controls and to use environmental evaluations and dust samplings to monitor their exposures. The rule also updates standards for respiratory protection to include the latest advances in equipment and practices to safeguard miners against a range of airborne hazards including silica dust, diesel particulate matter, and asbestos.
In addition, the rule requires metal and nonmetal mine operators to establish medical surveillance programs and provide periodic health examinations to minors at no cost, similar to existing programs for coal miners, according to the press release.
Implementation of the rule will result in approximately 1067 lifetime avoided deaths and 3746 lifetime avoided cases of silica-related illness, according to MSHA.
“Congress gave MSHA the authority to regulate toxic substances to protect miners from health hazards and made clear in the Mine Act that miners’ health and safety must always be our first priority and concern,” said Chris Williamson, assistant secretary for mine safety and health, in the press release. “To further advance this directive, MSHA is committed to working together with everyone in the mining community to implement this rule successfully. No miner should ever have to sacrifice their health or lungs to provide for their family,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has announced a new final rule designed to protect miners from the dangers of exposure to silica dust, according to a press release from the US Department of Labor.
including silicosis, lung cancer, progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis, and kidney disease.
The MSHA final rule reduces the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air for a miner›s full-shift exposure, which was calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. If a miner’s exposure exceeds this limit, mine operators must take immediate action to comply with it, according to the new final rule.
“It is unconscionable that our nation’s miners have worked without adequate protection from silica dust despite it being a known health hazard for decades,” said Department of Labor acting secretary Julie Su, in the press release. “The Department of Labor has taken an important action to finally reduce miners’ exposure to toxic silica dust and protect them from suffering from preventable diseases,” she said.
The final rule requires mine operators to prevent miners’ overexposures by using engineering controls and to use environmental evaluations and dust samplings to monitor their exposures. The rule also updates standards for respiratory protection to include the latest advances in equipment and practices to safeguard miners against a range of airborne hazards including silica dust, diesel particulate matter, and asbestos.
In addition, the rule requires metal and nonmetal mine operators to establish medical surveillance programs and provide periodic health examinations to minors at no cost, similar to existing programs for coal miners, according to the press release.
Implementation of the rule will result in approximately 1067 lifetime avoided deaths and 3746 lifetime avoided cases of silica-related illness, according to MSHA.
“Congress gave MSHA the authority to regulate toxic substances to protect miners from health hazards and made clear in the Mine Act that miners’ health and safety must always be our first priority and concern,” said Chris Williamson, assistant secretary for mine safety and health, in the press release. “To further advance this directive, MSHA is committed to working together with everyone in the mining community to implement this rule successfully. No miner should ever have to sacrifice their health or lungs to provide for their family,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has announced a new final rule designed to protect miners from the dangers of exposure to silica dust, according to a press release from the US Department of Labor.
including silicosis, lung cancer, progressive massive fibrosis, chronic bronchitis, and kidney disease.
The MSHA final rule reduces the permissible exposure limit of respirable crystalline silica to 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air for a miner›s full-shift exposure, which was calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. If a miner’s exposure exceeds this limit, mine operators must take immediate action to comply with it, according to the new final rule.
“It is unconscionable that our nation’s miners have worked without adequate protection from silica dust despite it being a known health hazard for decades,” said Department of Labor acting secretary Julie Su, in the press release. “The Department of Labor has taken an important action to finally reduce miners’ exposure to toxic silica dust and protect them from suffering from preventable diseases,” she said.
The final rule requires mine operators to prevent miners’ overexposures by using engineering controls and to use environmental evaluations and dust samplings to monitor their exposures. The rule also updates standards for respiratory protection to include the latest advances in equipment and practices to safeguard miners against a range of airborne hazards including silica dust, diesel particulate matter, and asbestos.
In addition, the rule requires metal and nonmetal mine operators to establish medical surveillance programs and provide periodic health examinations to minors at no cost, similar to existing programs for coal miners, according to the press release.
Implementation of the rule will result in approximately 1067 lifetime avoided deaths and 3746 lifetime avoided cases of silica-related illness, according to MSHA.
“Congress gave MSHA the authority to regulate toxic substances to protect miners from health hazards and made clear in the Mine Act that miners’ health and safety must always be our first priority and concern,” said Chris Williamson, assistant secretary for mine safety and health, in the press release. “To further advance this directive, MSHA is committed to working together with everyone in the mining community to implement this rule successfully. No miner should ever have to sacrifice their health or lungs to provide for their family,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do Patients Benefit from Cancer Trial Participation?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
- To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
- The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
- The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
- Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
- Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).
IN PRACTICE:
“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote.
“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”
SOURCE:
Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported.
DISCLOSURES:
Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
- To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
- The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
- The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
- Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
- Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).
IN PRACTICE:
“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote.
“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”
SOURCE:
Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported.
DISCLOSURES:
Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
- To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
- The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
- The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
- Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
- Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).
IN PRACTICE:
“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote.
“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”
SOURCE:
Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported.
DISCLOSURES:
Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
From Pharma’s Factories Direct to You
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes.
This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures?
Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.
LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.
On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they?
Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.
Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.
Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site.
Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.
These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.
The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common.
But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise.
Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects.
Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes.
This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures?
Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.
LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.
On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they?
Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.
Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.
Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site.
Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.
These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.
The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common.
But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise.
Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects.
Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly recently announced that its newly approved weight loss medication Zepbound — a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) akin to Mounjaro, Ozempic, and Wegovy — will be prescribed by independent telehealth providers on a platform managed by the company itself. The drug can be subsequently shipped direct to consumer (DTC), allowing delivery straight to patients’ homes.
This arrangement raises serious concerns about an inherent conflict of interest, as we previously discussed. What happens when a pharmaceutical company influences access to remote providers who prescribe the very medications it manufactures?
Without new guardrails, the potential for misleading messaging to result in dangerous prescribing patterns looms large. The United States is one of only two countries to allow DTC advertising of prescription drugs, and the explosion in demand for GLP-1 RAs is partly attributable to this model (Oh, oh, Ozempic, anyone?). Americans spent over $78 billion on weight loss goods and services in 2019; time-intensive approaches such as diet and exercise are understandably difficult, and the public has always looked for a magic cure. Although GLP-1 RAs are promising, they may present a path to disaster without proper supervision.
LillyDirect, which in addition to Zepbound offers migraine medications and other products in the company’s catalogue, primarily aims to increase access to medication and reduce costs of the drugs for consumers. The stated mission is noble: By cutting out the middlemen of traditional pharmacies and benefit managers, administrative costs drop. LillyDirect goes a step further by reducing the need for patients to visit their regular family doctor to receive these medications.
On the surface, this design appears promising. Wait times for doctor’s appointments will fall. Patients can order drugs from the comfort of their home. Everyone benefits. Or do they?
Although easier access and reduced cost may be an apparent win for patients, DTC arrangements complicate the ethics of prescriptions and patient follow-up. This model reminds us of the roots of the opioid crisis, where powerful advertising and relationships between prescribers and drugmakers led to great harm. Providers often faced a conflict of interest when prescribing dangerous drugs to patients who requested them. We must learn from these mistakes to ensure there is critical oversight into the independence of prescribers used by LillyDirect and other DTC platforms.
Adding to these parallels, once a patient begins a GLP-1 medication such as Zepbound, stopping treatment will probably lead to regaining lost weight, serving as negative reinforcement. Hence, patients may decide never to discontinue these medications.
Obtaining what amounts to a lifelong prescription from a telehealth provider who may never follow a patient sets a dangerous precedent that will be difficult to unravel once begun. Recent challenges in access to medications such as Zepbound have been complicated by supply chain and manufacturing issues, leading to potential interruptions in patient access, ultimately affecting compliance. The rapid increase in online providers indicates competition for distribution channels has sharply increased and poses a threat to Lilly’s DTC site.
Furthermore, the lack of a regular physician to monitor patients introduces uncertainty in safety and continuity of care. These are important tenets in protecting patients, especially patients who are not diabetic and desire a quick fix. We have already seen a huge, arguably unrestrained, rise in prescriptions of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss — up to a 352% increase in 2023.
These drugs have shown great promise and are generally safe when used in the right patient, but important contraindications exist — namely, serious gastrointestinal side effects and low blood glucose in nondiabetic persons — that an astute physician must consider. Patients desiring these medications often must undergo comprehensive laboratory testing and cardiac evaluation, both before initiation and during regular follow-up, to check for comorbidities.
The American College of Physicians cautioned against such prescribing practices in a recent position statement, emphasizing that the lack of an established care provider could adversely affect patients. We note that the potential harms of DTC sales would concentrate in economically and racially underserved communities, where obesity, lack of insurance, and low health literacy are more common.
But the DTC genie is out of the pill bottle, and as such platforms become more common, patients will inherently take more ownership over their medical care. Remote providers will of course not be following these patients and evaluating for side effects. As a result, we in medical practice must be abreast of new downsides of these medications if and when they arise.
Every clinician must be aware of the medications a patient is taking, even those that they did not prescribe. They should educate their patients about drug-drug interactions and side effects and order lab tests to monitor for side effects.
Independent physicians abide by an underlying oath: First, do no harm. They serve as a trusted check on industry and a valuable long-term partner for patients. Where are the guardrails to protect patients and ensure that pharmaceutical companies are not essentially pushing prescriptions for their own products? Will traditional healthcare providers be effectively relegated to a bystander role in Lilly’s transactional approach to medication distribution? Unlike other commercial goods, pharmacologics have great nuance; not every approved medication is meant for every patient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do Health-Related Social Needs Raise Mortality Risk in Cancer Survivors?
Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.
A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.
Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?
The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.
The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.
“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
What Does the New Study Show?
The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.
Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).
Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).
Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.
Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.
“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?
HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.
“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.
“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.
“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
What Other Guidance Is Available?
“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.
In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).
“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.
Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.
A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.
Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?
The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.
The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.
“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
What Does the New Study Show?
The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.
Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).
Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).
Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.
Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.
“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?
HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.
“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.
“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.
“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
What Other Guidance Is Available?
“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.
In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).
“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.
Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.
A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.
Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?
The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.
The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.
“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
What Does the New Study Show?
The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.
Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).
Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).
Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.
Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.
Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.
“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?
HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.
“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.
“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.
“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
What Other Guidance Is Available?
“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.
In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).
“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.
Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM CANCER
Terminal Cancer: What Matters to Patients and Caregivers
New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.
“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.
However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.
In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.
This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?
Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.
In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.
The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.
Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.
When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.
Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.
To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.
Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.
“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”
Managing Unrealistic Expectations
As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.
This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.
“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.
Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.
Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.
“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”
Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.
This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.
“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.
However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.
In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.
This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?
Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.
In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.
The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.
Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.
When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.
Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.
To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.
Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.
“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”
Managing Unrealistic Expectations
As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.
This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.
“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.
Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.
Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.
“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”
Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.
This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.
“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.
However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.
In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.
This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?
Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.
In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.
The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.
Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.
When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.
Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.
To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.
Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.
“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”
Managing Unrealistic Expectations
As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.
This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.
“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.
Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.
Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.
“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”
Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.
This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Home ventilation consult
Specialist input on a sudden shift in device availability
Philips Respironics released a public statement on January 25, 2024, that would dramatically change the landscape of home mechanical ventilation and sleep-disordered breathing management in the United States. The company announced that, effective immediately in the US and US territories, Philips Respironics would stop production and sale of all hospital and home mechanical ventilation products, home and hospital ventilation devices, and oxygen concentrators.
There are many unknowns and uncertainties about how to proceed with care for patients requiring these devices. So we gathered an expert panel of clinicians from CHEST’s Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section within the Sleep Medicine Network to explain the current situation and offer suggestions on moving forward in caring for these patients.
Why is this happening?
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP: To understand the current Philips Respironics announcement, we must go back to June 2021. At that time, Philips recalled certain home mechanical ventilators, CPAP machines, and BiPAP machines due to potential health risks related to breakdown of the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam placed in these devices for noise reduction. Small and microscopic particles of this foam were at risk for being inhaled or ingested by patients using these devices. It was suspected that inhalation of these particles could potentially result in temporary or permanent injury. Machines in hot temperatures or using ozone cleaning were at increased risk. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a class 1 recall, defined as “a situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
In the months following the initial recall, there were additional recalls of both in-hospital and home ventilators related to the potential of these foam particles to move and block the air path, reducing airflow and causing the device to alarm.
Over the next few years, tens of thousands of medical device reports were filed about PE-PUR foam-related injuries, with some cases resulting in death. At this time, the Department of Justice began collaborating with the FDA on a consent decree. There were ongoing recalls of the CoughAssist T70 device, as well as the newest generation of Philips Respironics home ventilators, the Trilogy EVO.
Ultimately, after years of ongoing recalls and reports of numerous deaths and injuries, with multiple class action lawsuits, the consent decree was finalized. Philips Respironics agreed to stop production of all respiratory-related products in the US and US territories.
What devices does this apply to?
Jason Ackrivo, MD: This notice affects the devices shown in Table 1. All sales and device shipments have been discontinued as of January 25, 2024. Philips Respironics will continue to service the devices, subject to part availability, up to 5 years after sales discontinuation. However, Philips Respironics will continue to sell consumables and accessories, including masks.
What are my options for home mechanical ventilators?
Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP: In the US, alternative approved home mechanical ventilator (HMV) devices include Astral by ResMed, Vivo 45 and Vivo 65 by Breas, and VOCSN by Ventec. Additional options made available through emergency use authorization by the FDA between 2020 and 2022 included Luisa by Löwenstein Medical, the V+ by Ventec, and Life2000 by Baxter. Many of us expedite disposition from the hospital by prescribing HMVs rather than respiratory assist devices (RADs) because it is easier to meet qualifying criteria for insurance. In efforts to promote just allocation of resources, now might be the ideal time to reconsider higher utilization of RADs over HMVs. Reasonable RAD candidates are those who do not need autotitration of EPAP, dual mode therapy, or invasive ventilation. In these cases, the qualifying criteria and patient needs may be met with a RAD capable of VAPS or BPAP-ST mode.
How are these alternative devices similar to and different from the Trilogy EVO?
Dr. Ackrivo:All these devices are portable ventilators that can deliver noninvasive or invasive ventilation. They have internal batteries for enabling portability. They offer multiple programmable presets and mouthpiece ventilation, and some offer both oxygenation and CO2 monitoring (both TcCO2 and EtCO2).
All alternative portable ventilators include a proprietary ventilation mode analogous to the Trilogy AVAPS algorithm (Table 2). The ResMed Astral has a safety tidal volume feature that targets a minimum tidal volume in PS, S/T, or P(A)C modes. The ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. The Breas Vivo can target a tidal volume (TgV) in either PSV or PCV mode.
Unique ventilator characteristics are shown in Table 2. ResMed Astral mode options will differ between leak (passive) or valve (active) circuits. Both the Breas Vivo and Löwenstein Luisa enable high-flow oxygen delivery. Only the Breas Vivo enables connecting to a transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitor. The VOCSN name is an acronym for its multifunctional capabilities: ventilation, oxygenation, cough assist, suction, and nebulizer treatments. Lastly, the VOCSN can disable leak compensation, which may be advantageous for enabling leak speech with a tracheostomy.
I just provided my patient with a Trilogy EVO. Do I need to change this immediately?
Dr. Coleman: No, but you should start conversations with your patient/caregiving support and with your durable medical equipment (DME) provider about alternative options. The ripple effects of the Philips Respironics recall will be ongoing for years. The silver lining of this situation is that there are numerous HMV options on the market currently. It is important to review the differences between these new devices and consider what will work best for your patient and your practice. In addition, it is critical that your DME provider is familiar with these new devices, both for support and education, and is taking steps to make alternate devices available. We anticipate a push in coming months to switch patients off Trilogy EVO, so it important to get this process started.
For patients not interested in switching just yet, Philips Respironics will continue to service and offer supplies for these devices for up to 5 years, depending on part availability (Table 1). Refer to the Philips Respironics Sleep & Respiratory Product Portfolio Changes website for the most up-to-date information.
I have a patient on AVAPS, and I must change to iVAPS. What now?
Dr. Lussier: As mentioned previously by Dr. Ackrivo, the ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. A download from a current VAPS setting can be helpful in defining target ventilation and pressure ranges for a tailored prescription. ResMed has an online iVAPS calculator (resmed.com) to assist in making this switch. Close clinical monitoring with data downloads is recommended to assure desired targets are still achieved.
What will happen to Philips Respironics’ cloud patient data?
Dr. Lussier: Representatives have reported that both providers and DME companies will have continued access to Care Orchestrator going forward. Currently, the logistics of data maintenance and ownership remain unclear, which poses additional questions about global access to patients’ data downloads.
----------
The recent discontinuation of Philips Respironics ventilation devices will induce a dramatic shift in home ventilation options in the US. Clinicians and DME companies should begin familiarizing themselves with alternative ventilators and their unique features. While significant uncertainty exists, we encourage a proactive approach to education and communication to ensure a smooth transition for patients on home ventilation.
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP, is Associate Professor, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP, is in the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care, UT Southwestern Medical Center. Jason Ackrivo, MD, is Assistant Professor of Medicine and Neurology, and Associate Director, Jay and Randy Fishman Program for Home Assisted Ventilation, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
Specialist input on a sudden shift in device availability
Specialist input on a sudden shift in device availability
Philips Respironics released a public statement on January 25, 2024, that would dramatically change the landscape of home mechanical ventilation and sleep-disordered breathing management in the United States. The company announced that, effective immediately in the US and US territories, Philips Respironics would stop production and sale of all hospital and home mechanical ventilation products, home and hospital ventilation devices, and oxygen concentrators.
There are many unknowns and uncertainties about how to proceed with care for patients requiring these devices. So we gathered an expert panel of clinicians from CHEST’s Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section within the Sleep Medicine Network to explain the current situation and offer suggestions on moving forward in caring for these patients.
Why is this happening?
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP: To understand the current Philips Respironics announcement, we must go back to June 2021. At that time, Philips recalled certain home mechanical ventilators, CPAP machines, and BiPAP machines due to potential health risks related to breakdown of the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam placed in these devices for noise reduction. Small and microscopic particles of this foam were at risk for being inhaled or ingested by patients using these devices. It was suspected that inhalation of these particles could potentially result in temporary or permanent injury. Machines in hot temperatures or using ozone cleaning were at increased risk. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a class 1 recall, defined as “a situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
In the months following the initial recall, there were additional recalls of both in-hospital and home ventilators related to the potential of these foam particles to move and block the air path, reducing airflow and causing the device to alarm.
Over the next few years, tens of thousands of medical device reports were filed about PE-PUR foam-related injuries, with some cases resulting in death. At this time, the Department of Justice began collaborating with the FDA on a consent decree. There were ongoing recalls of the CoughAssist T70 device, as well as the newest generation of Philips Respironics home ventilators, the Trilogy EVO.
Ultimately, after years of ongoing recalls and reports of numerous deaths and injuries, with multiple class action lawsuits, the consent decree was finalized. Philips Respironics agreed to stop production of all respiratory-related products in the US and US territories.
What devices does this apply to?
Jason Ackrivo, MD: This notice affects the devices shown in Table 1. All sales and device shipments have been discontinued as of January 25, 2024. Philips Respironics will continue to service the devices, subject to part availability, up to 5 years after sales discontinuation. However, Philips Respironics will continue to sell consumables and accessories, including masks.
What are my options for home mechanical ventilators?
Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP: In the US, alternative approved home mechanical ventilator (HMV) devices include Astral by ResMed, Vivo 45 and Vivo 65 by Breas, and VOCSN by Ventec. Additional options made available through emergency use authorization by the FDA between 2020 and 2022 included Luisa by Löwenstein Medical, the V+ by Ventec, and Life2000 by Baxter. Many of us expedite disposition from the hospital by prescribing HMVs rather than respiratory assist devices (RADs) because it is easier to meet qualifying criteria for insurance. In efforts to promote just allocation of resources, now might be the ideal time to reconsider higher utilization of RADs over HMVs. Reasonable RAD candidates are those who do not need autotitration of EPAP, dual mode therapy, or invasive ventilation. In these cases, the qualifying criteria and patient needs may be met with a RAD capable of VAPS or BPAP-ST mode.
How are these alternative devices similar to and different from the Trilogy EVO?
Dr. Ackrivo:All these devices are portable ventilators that can deliver noninvasive or invasive ventilation. They have internal batteries for enabling portability. They offer multiple programmable presets and mouthpiece ventilation, and some offer both oxygenation and CO2 monitoring (both TcCO2 and EtCO2).
All alternative portable ventilators include a proprietary ventilation mode analogous to the Trilogy AVAPS algorithm (Table 2). The ResMed Astral has a safety tidal volume feature that targets a minimum tidal volume in PS, S/T, or P(A)C modes. The ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. The Breas Vivo can target a tidal volume (TgV) in either PSV or PCV mode.
Unique ventilator characteristics are shown in Table 2. ResMed Astral mode options will differ between leak (passive) or valve (active) circuits. Both the Breas Vivo and Löwenstein Luisa enable high-flow oxygen delivery. Only the Breas Vivo enables connecting to a transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitor. The VOCSN name is an acronym for its multifunctional capabilities: ventilation, oxygenation, cough assist, suction, and nebulizer treatments. Lastly, the VOCSN can disable leak compensation, which may be advantageous for enabling leak speech with a tracheostomy.
I just provided my patient with a Trilogy EVO. Do I need to change this immediately?
Dr. Coleman: No, but you should start conversations with your patient/caregiving support and with your durable medical equipment (DME) provider about alternative options. The ripple effects of the Philips Respironics recall will be ongoing for years. The silver lining of this situation is that there are numerous HMV options on the market currently. It is important to review the differences between these new devices and consider what will work best for your patient and your practice. In addition, it is critical that your DME provider is familiar with these new devices, both for support and education, and is taking steps to make alternate devices available. We anticipate a push in coming months to switch patients off Trilogy EVO, so it important to get this process started.
For patients not interested in switching just yet, Philips Respironics will continue to service and offer supplies for these devices for up to 5 years, depending on part availability (Table 1). Refer to the Philips Respironics Sleep & Respiratory Product Portfolio Changes website for the most up-to-date information.
I have a patient on AVAPS, and I must change to iVAPS. What now?
Dr. Lussier: As mentioned previously by Dr. Ackrivo, the ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. A download from a current VAPS setting can be helpful in defining target ventilation and pressure ranges for a tailored prescription. ResMed has an online iVAPS calculator (resmed.com) to assist in making this switch. Close clinical monitoring with data downloads is recommended to assure desired targets are still achieved.
What will happen to Philips Respironics’ cloud patient data?
Dr. Lussier: Representatives have reported that both providers and DME companies will have continued access to Care Orchestrator going forward. Currently, the logistics of data maintenance and ownership remain unclear, which poses additional questions about global access to patients’ data downloads.
----------
The recent discontinuation of Philips Respironics ventilation devices will induce a dramatic shift in home ventilation options in the US. Clinicians and DME companies should begin familiarizing themselves with alternative ventilators and their unique features. While significant uncertainty exists, we encourage a proactive approach to education and communication to ensure a smooth transition for patients on home ventilation.
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP, is Associate Professor, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP, is in the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care, UT Southwestern Medical Center. Jason Ackrivo, MD, is Assistant Professor of Medicine and Neurology, and Associate Director, Jay and Randy Fishman Program for Home Assisted Ventilation, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
Philips Respironics released a public statement on January 25, 2024, that would dramatically change the landscape of home mechanical ventilation and sleep-disordered breathing management in the United States. The company announced that, effective immediately in the US and US territories, Philips Respironics would stop production and sale of all hospital and home mechanical ventilation products, home and hospital ventilation devices, and oxygen concentrators.
There are many unknowns and uncertainties about how to proceed with care for patients requiring these devices. So we gathered an expert panel of clinicians from CHEST’s Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section within the Sleep Medicine Network to explain the current situation and offer suggestions on moving forward in caring for these patients.
Why is this happening?
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP: To understand the current Philips Respironics announcement, we must go back to June 2021. At that time, Philips recalled certain home mechanical ventilators, CPAP machines, and BiPAP machines due to potential health risks related to breakdown of the polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) foam placed in these devices for noise reduction. Small and microscopic particles of this foam were at risk for being inhaled or ingested by patients using these devices. It was suspected that inhalation of these particles could potentially result in temporary or permanent injury. Machines in hot temperatures or using ozone cleaning were at increased risk. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a class 1 recall, defined as “a situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
In the months following the initial recall, there were additional recalls of both in-hospital and home ventilators related to the potential of these foam particles to move and block the air path, reducing airflow and causing the device to alarm.
Over the next few years, tens of thousands of medical device reports were filed about PE-PUR foam-related injuries, with some cases resulting in death. At this time, the Department of Justice began collaborating with the FDA on a consent decree. There were ongoing recalls of the CoughAssist T70 device, as well as the newest generation of Philips Respironics home ventilators, the Trilogy EVO.
Ultimately, after years of ongoing recalls and reports of numerous deaths and injuries, with multiple class action lawsuits, the consent decree was finalized. Philips Respironics agreed to stop production of all respiratory-related products in the US and US territories.
What devices does this apply to?
Jason Ackrivo, MD: This notice affects the devices shown in Table 1. All sales and device shipments have been discontinued as of January 25, 2024. Philips Respironics will continue to service the devices, subject to part availability, up to 5 years after sales discontinuation. However, Philips Respironics will continue to sell consumables and accessories, including masks.
What are my options for home mechanical ventilators?
Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP: In the US, alternative approved home mechanical ventilator (HMV) devices include Astral by ResMed, Vivo 45 and Vivo 65 by Breas, and VOCSN by Ventec. Additional options made available through emergency use authorization by the FDA between 2020 and 2022 included Luisa by Löwenstein Medical, the V+ by Ventec, and Life2000 by Baxter. Many of us expedite disposition from the hospital by prescribing HMVs rather than respiratory assist devices (RADs) because it is easier to meet qualifying criteria for insurance. In efforts to promote just allocation of resources, now might be the ideal time to reconsider higher utilization of RADs over HMVs. Reasonable RAD candidates are those who do not need autotitration of EPAP, dual mode therapy, or invasive ventilation. In these cases, the qualifying criteria and patient needs may be met with a RAD capable of VAPS or BPAP-ST mode.
How are these alternative devices similar to and different from the Trilogy EVO?
Dr. Ackrivo:All these devices are portable ventilators that can deliver noninvasive or invasive ventilation. They have internal batteries for enabling portability. They offer multiple programmable presets and mouthpiece ventilation, and some offer both oxygenation and CO2 monitoring (both TcCO2 and EtCO2).
All alternative portable ventilators include a proprietary ventilation mode analogous to the Trilogy AVAPS algorithm (Table 2). The ResMed Astral has a safety tidal volume feature that targets a minimum tidal volume in PS, S/T, or P(A)C modes. The ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. The Breas Vivo can target a tidal volume (TgV) in either PSV or PCV mode.
Unique ventilator characteristics are shown in Table 2. ResMed Astral mode options will differ between leak (passive) or valve (active) circuits. Both the Breas Vivo and Löwenstein Luisa enable high-flow oxygen delivery. Only the Breas Vivo enables connecting to a transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitor. The VOCSN name is an acronym for its multifunctional capabilities: ventilation, oxygenation, cough assist, suction, and nebulizer treatments. Lastly, the VOCSN can disable leak compensation, which may be advantageous for enabling leak speech with a tracheostomy.
I just provided my patient with a Trilogy EVO. Do I need to change this immediately?
Dr. Coleman: No, but you should start conversations with your patient/caregiving support and with your durable medical equipment (DME) provider about alternative options. The ripple effects of the Philips Respironics recall will be ongoing for years. The silver lining of this situation is that there are numerous HMV options on the market currently. It is important to review the differences between these new devices and consider what will work best for your patient and your practice. In addition, it is critical that your DME provider is familiar with these new devices, both for support and education, and is taking steps to make alternate devices available. We anticipate a push in coming months to switch patients off Trilogy EVO, so it important to get this process started.
For patients not interested in switching just yet, Philips Respironics will continue to service and offer supplies for these devices for up to 5 years, depending on part availability (Table 1). Refer to the Philips Respironics Sleep & Respiratory Product Portfolio Changes website for the most up-to-date information.
I have a patient on AVAPS, and I must change to iVAPS. What now?
Dr. Lussier: As mentioned previously by Dr. Ackrivo, the ResMed iVAPS algorithm adjusts inspiratory pressure and respiratory rate to target an alveolar ventilation based on patient-entered height. A download from a current VAPS setting can be helpful in defining target ventilation and pressure ranges for a tailored prescription. ResMed has an online iVAPS calculator (resmed.com) to assist in making this switch. Close clinical monitoring with data downloads is recommended to assure desired targets are still achieved.
What will happen to Philips Respironics’ cloud patient data?
Dr. Lussier: Representatives have reported that both providers and DME companies will have continued access to Care Orchestrator going forward. Currently, the logistics of data maintenance and ownership remain unclear, which poses additional questions about global access to patients’ data downloads.
----------
The recent discontinuation of Philips Respironics ventilation devices will induce a dramatic shift in home ventilation options in the US. Clinicians and DME companies should begin familiarizing themselves with alternative ventilators and their unique features. While significant uncertainty exists, we encourage a proactive approach to education and communication to ensure a smooth transition for patients on home ventilation.
John M. Coleman III, MD, FCCP, is Associate Professor, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Bethany L. Lussier, MD, FCCP, is in the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care, UT Southwestern Medical Center. Jason Ackrivo, MD, is Assistant Professor of Medicine and Neurology, and Associate Director, Jay and Randy Fishman Program for Home Assisted Ventilation, Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Division, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.