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')]
Weighing the Benefits of Integrating AI-based Clinical Notes Into Your Practice
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?”
This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.
The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation
The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.
How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:
Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.
Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.
Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.
Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.
Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.
Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation
- Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
- Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
- Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
- Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.
The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.
In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.
I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.
Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Federal Rule Delivers Workplace Support, Time Off for Pregnant Docs
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship.
Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population.
Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations.
Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career.
She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”
Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014.
Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”
After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause.
The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms
The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.
FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks.
Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said.
Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery.
Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave.
“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments.
This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6.
“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors.
Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause.
“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AI Surpasses Harvard Docs on Clinical Reasoning Test
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
- Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
- The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
- The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
- AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel PCSK9 Inhibitor Reduced LDL by 50%
Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.
Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.
“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.
The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Additional Therapy Needed
The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.
Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.
Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”
LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.
The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.
The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.
The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).
Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
Rule of Thumb
“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”
All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”
As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets.
The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.
Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).
Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).
A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
Still Work to Do
During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”
He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”
Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”
That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.
Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.
The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.
Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.
“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.
The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Additional Therapy Needed
The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.
Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.
Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”
LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.
The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.
The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.
The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).
Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
Rule of Thumb
“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”
All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”
As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets.
The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.
Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).
Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).
A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
Still Work to Do
During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”
He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”
Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”
That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.
Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.
The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.
Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.
“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.
The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
Additional Therapy Needed
The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.
Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.
Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”
LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.
The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).
Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.
The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.
The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).
Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
Rule of Thumb
“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”
All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”
As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets.
The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.
Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).
Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).
A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
Still Work to Do
During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”
He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”
Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”
That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.
Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.
The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2024
Time to Lung Disease in Patients With Dermatomyositis Subtype Estimated
TOPLINE:
The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.
METHODOLOGY:
- , with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
- In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
- The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
- ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
- The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
- Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.
METHODOLOGY:
- , with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
- In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
- The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
- ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
- The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
- Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The time interval between onset of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and diagnosis of anti–melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) antibody-positive dermatomyositis (DM) “has not been well described,” the authors say.
METHODOLOGY:
- , with the former having a particularly high mortality rate.
- In this retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records, researchers evaluated 774 patients with DM between 2008 and 2023 to learn more about the time interval between ILD and the time of an MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis, which has not been well described.
- The primary outcome was ILD diagnosis and time in days between documented ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 14 patients with DM (1.8%) were diagnosed with MDA5 antibody-positive DM in dermatology, rheumatology, or pulmonology departments (nine women and five men; age, 24-77 years; 79% were White and 7% were Black).
- ILD was diagnosed in 9 of the 14 patients (64%); 6 of the 14 (43%) met the criteria for RPILD. Two cases were diagnosed concurrently and two prior to MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnosis.
- The median time between ILD and MDA5 antibody-positive DM diagnoses was 163 days.
- Gottron papules/sign and midfacial erythema were the most common dermatologic findings, and no association was seen between cutaneous signs and type of ILD.
IN PRACTICE:
“Establishing an accurate timeline between MDA5 antibody-positive DM and ILD can promote urgency among dermatologists to evaluate extracutaneous manifestations in their management of patients with DM for more accurate risk stratification and appropriate treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Rachel R. Lin, from the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Study limitations were the study’s retrospective design and small sample size.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on study funding was provided. One author reported personal fees from argenX outside this submitted work. Other authors did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Why Lung Cancer Screening Is Not for Everyone
Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?
Reasons in Favor
The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.
Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
Potential Harms
The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.
Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.
The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
Screening in Italy
Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.
Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.
Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?
Reasons in Favor
The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.
Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
Potential Harms
The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.
Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.
The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
Screening in Italy
Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.
Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.
Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Why does this happen? Could it also occur in Italy?
Reasons in Favor
The authors of the study, which was published in Annals of Family Medicine interviewed 40 former military personnel with a significant history of smoking. Though the patients presented with various comorbidities and had a limited life expectancy, the Veterans Health Administration had offered them lung cancer screening.
Of the 40 respondents, 26 had accepted the screening test. When asked why they had done so, they responded, “to take care of my health and achieve my life goals,” “because screening is an opportunity to identify potential issues,” “because it was recommended by a doctor I trust,” and “because I don’t want to regret not accepting it.” Strangely, when deciding about lung cancer screening, the respondents did not consider their poor health or life expectancy.
Potential Harms
The screening was also welcomed because low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a noninvasive test. However, many participants were unaware that the screening needed to be repeated annually and that further imaging or other types of tests could follow LDCT, such as biopsies and bronchoscopies.
Many did not recall discussing with the doctor the potential harms of screening, including overdiagnosis, stress due to false positives, and complications and risks associated with investigations and treatments. Informed about this, several patients stated that they would not necessarily undergo further tests or antitumor treatments, especially if intensive or invasive.
The authors of the article emphasized the importance of shared decision-making with patients who have a marginal expected benefit from screening. But is it correct to offer screening under these conditions? Guidelines advise against screening individuals with limited life expectancy and multiple comorbidities because the risk-benefit ratio is not favorable.
Screening in Italy
Italy has no organized public program for lung screening. However, in 2022, the Rete Italiana Screening Polmonare (RISP) program for early lung cancer diagnosis was launched. Supported by European funds, it is coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (INT) in Milan and aims to recruit 10,000 high-risk candidates for free screening at 18 hospitals across Italy.
Optimizing participant selection is important in any screening, but in a program like RISP, it is essential, said Alessandro Pardolesi, MD, a thoracic surgeon at INT. “Subjects with multiple comorbidities would create a limit to the study, because there would be too many confounding factors. By maintaining correct inclusion criteria, we can build a reproducible model to demonstrate that screening has a clear social and economic impact. Only after proving its effectiveness can we consider extending it to patients with pre-existing issues or who are very elderly,” he said. The RISP project is limited to participants aged 55-75 years. Participants must be smokers or have quit smoking no more than 15 years ago, with an average consumption of 20 cigarettes per day for 30 years.
Participant selection for the RISP program is also dictated by the costs to be incurred. “If something emerges from the CT scan, whether oncologic or not, it needs to be investigated, triggering mechanisms that consume time, space, and resources,” said Dr. Pardolesi. The economic aspect is crucial for determining the effectiveness of screening. “We need to demonstrate that in addition to increasing the patient’s life expectancy, healthcare costs are reduced. By anticipating the diagnosis, the intervention is less expensive, the patient is discharged in three days, and there’s no need for therapy, so there’s a saving. This is important, given the increasingly evident economic problems of the Italian public health system,” said Dr. Pardolesi.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Both Promise and Concern for OSA and CPAP with GLP-1s
Will the weight reduction success with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists translate into strong reductions in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Will those potential OSA benefits obviate the need in many for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)?
“I think it’s a game changer for helping people who are overweight or obese,” Samuel T. Kuna, MD, chief of sleep medicine at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview with CHEST Physician. “I think we’re just starting out on a very exciting new era. We finally have quite effective treatments for this population.” Dr. Kuna’s Sleep AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) 2021 study (doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2511OC) found that participants with OSA and type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving intensive lifestyle interventions for weight loss had reduced OSA severity at 10 years, and that OSA remission at 10 years was more common with intensive lifestyle intervention than with diabetes support and education.
Potential for OSA impact
In a JAMA Network Open/Pulmonary Medicine article on a 2022 study (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8212) conducted among 89 Spanish male adults with moderate to severe OSA and body mass index of 25 or greater, participants received CPAP therapy with or without 8 weeks of weight loss and lifestyle intervention. The primary endpoint of apnea-hypopnea index at 6 months showed the intervention to yield “clinically meaningful and sustainable improvements in OSA.”
Dr. Kuna stated, “I don’t think these [weight loss] agents eliminate the importance of behavioral modification, of changing diet, of reducing highly processed foods and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.” He acknowledged, however, that behavioral endeavors have been in general disappointing with respect to patients’ ability to achieve weight loss. “These medicines really open up a new strategy to help patients do that,” he added.
Dr. Kuna pointed to a recent (2023) Grunstein et al. perspective article (doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad224) published in Sleep citing phase 3 trial results showing placebo-subtracted weight loss percentages. With subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide 2.4 mg they were 12.6% in patients with obesity or overweight with one or more weight-related comorbidities (but not type 2 diabetes), and 17.8% with tirzepatide (15 mg, SC, weekly), a combination GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, in a similar population. The authors stated, “These new agents, provided they are available to persons who need them most — who are often socioeconomically disadvantaged — could revolutionize the management of obesity and its many complications, including OSA.” Grunstein et al. also, noted that the number of studies showing improvement in cardiometabolic outcomes (eg, blood pressure) with pre-incretin OSA therapies are “minimal.” They underscored, however, the need for risk/benefit/cost-effectiveness data on incretin therapies, and cited evidence that withdrawal from incretin treatment brings back weight gain and adverse cardiometabolic factors. They also indicated key areas of uncertainty requiring research: gender-based response differences to incretins (women predominate in most weight loss studies, but OSA is more common in men), how CPAP users will adapt to incretin OSA benefits, direct comparisons of impact on OSA with incretins vs mechanical therapy, and understanding which target populations derive the most benefit with incretin therapies.
Despite the unanswered questions, the direction was unequivocally clear for Grunstein et al.: “Ultimately, the focus must shift away from mechanical therapy for obesity-related OSA towards weight loss, the latter which is likely to produce multiple health outcome improvements that are superior, including all-cause mortality.”
Dr. Kuna agreed with the Sleep article authors that one implication of this “incretin revolution” is that sleep physicians will have to broaden their skills to encompass obesity management. “As the field evolves, perhaps we should start training our fellows about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Kuna said.
Significant impact on OSA and CPAP
“Obesity is a risk factor for sleep apnea,” stated Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, professor, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, “so with increased use of these GLP-1 agents for weight reduction, we would anticipate a significant impact on both OSA severity and need for CPAP.” Speaking in a CHEST Physician interview and referring to the Kuna et al. study, she stated, “Since cessation of the drug can lead to rebound weight gain, the emphasis on healthy eating and exercise is crucial to management.” Dr. Faiz said further, “It’s important to note that there are other weight-independent mechanisms for OSA, including upper airway anatomy, mechanisms that modulate upper airway stability, chemoreceptor sensitivity, visceral adiposity, neuroendocrine control, sleep quality, and other aspects of OSA pathophysiology yet to be discovered.”
Cost an obstacle for some
“For many insurances, criteria for coverage include obesity and prediabetes based on HbA1c. For some not meeting requirements, they will have to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Faiz said. She pointed to a Respirology (doi: 10.1111/resp.14545) commentary in which Garun S. Hamilton, MBBS, PhD, and Bradley A. Edwards, PhD, underscored the nearly 1 billion people worldwide with OSA, most of whom are overweight or obese. “GLP-1 agonists are so effective that they have become a worldwide phenomenon. The high cost of the medications combined with the high prevalence of OSA means that there is no way that universal healthcare funding schemes can afford these medications, unless strict criteria are in place to prioritize those who can gain subsidized access and/or a duration of use limit is in place,” they stated. “This will no doubt exacerbate inequities in healthcare access and outcome between those from lower versus higher socioeconomic populations, as the attributable benefit from GLP-1 agonists is likely to be dependent on a patient’s ability to afford them.”
Beyond health equity concerns
The evidence for clinically relevant reductions in weight and resultant lowering of other adverse risk factors supports a wide embrace of Ozempic-type drugs. Standing alongside, however, are the cautionary pleas of nutrition/lifestyle-focused health advocates. They urge that prescriptions for nonpharmacological strategies that promote better sleep, healthier food choices, and more exercise need sharper highlighting and strong incentivizing.
Dr. Faiz said, “The availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods can impact food intake and weight. Specifically, in a small study of 20 inpatient adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center randomized to either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 14 days, increased caloric intake and weight gain were found in the ultra-processed cohort.” In the study Dr. Faiz cited (doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008), meals were matched for calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Analysis showed a 4-pound weight difference between groups within 2 weeks: The ultra-processed cohort had taken in an extra 500 calories a day and had gained weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .009]) and body fat while the unprocessed food group lost weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .007]) and body fat.
“Thus, the type of foods we opt for can also have significant impact,” Dr. Faiz stated.
Dr. Faiz and Dr. Kuna said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Will the weight reduction success with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists translate into strong reductions in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Will those potential OSA benefits obviate the need in many for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)?
“I think it’s a game changer for helping people who are overweight or obese,” Samuel T. Kuna, MD, chief of sleep medicine at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview with CHEST Physician. “I think we’re just starting out on a very exciting new era. We finally have quite effective treatments for this population.” Dr. Kuna’s Sleep AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) 2021 study (doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2511OC) found that participants with OSA and type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving intensive lifestyle interventions for weight loss had reduced OSA severity at 10 years, and that OSA remission at 10 years was more common with intensive lifestyle intervention than with diabetes support and education.
Potential for OSA impact
In a JAMA Network Open/Pulmonary Medicine article on a 2022 study (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8212) conducted among 89 Spanish male adults with moderate to severe OSA and body mass index of 25 or greater, participants received CPAP therapy with or without 8 weeks of weight loss and lifestyle intervention. The primary endpoint of apnea-hypopnea index at 6 months showed the intervention to yield “clinically meaningful and sustainable improvements in OSA.”
Dr. Kuna stated, “I don’t think these [weight loss] agents eliminate the importance of behavioral modification, of changing diet, of reducing highly processed foods and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.” He acknowledged, however, that behavioral endeavors have been in general disappointing with respect to patients’ ability to achieve weight loss. “These medicines really open up a new strategy to help patients do that,” he added.
Dr. Kuna pointed to a recent (2023) Grunstein et al. perspective article (doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad224) published in Sleep citing phase 3 trial results showing placebo-subtracted weight loss percentages. With subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide 2.4 mg they were 12.6% in patients with obesity or overweight with one or more weight-related comorbidities (but not type 2 diabetes), and 17.8% with tirzepatide (15 mg, SC, weekly), a combination GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, in a similar population. The authors stated, “These new agents, provided they are available to persons who need them most — who are often socioeconomically disadvantaged — could revolutionize the management of obesity and its many complications, including OSA.” Grunstein et al. also, noted that the number of studies showing improvement in cardiometabolic outcomes (eg, blood pressure) with pre-incretin OSA therapies are “minimal.” They underscored, however, the need for risk/benefit/cost-effectiveness data on incretin therapies, and cited evidence that withdrawal from incretin treatment brings back weight gain and adverse cardiometabolic factors. They also indicated key areas of uncertainty requiring research: gender-based response differences to incretins (women predominate in most weight loss studies, but OSA is more common in men), how CPAP users will adapt to incretin OSA benefits, direct comparisons of impact on OSA with incretins vs mechanical therapy, and understanding which target populations derive the most benefit with incretin therapies.
Despite the unanswered questions, the direction was unequivocally clear for Grunstein et al.: “Ultimately, the focus must shift away from mechanical therapy for obesity-related OSA towards weight loss, the latter which is likely to produce multiple health outcome improvements that are superior, including all-cause mortality.”
Dr. Kuna agreed with the Sleep article authors that one implication of this “incretin revolution” is that sleep physicians will have to broaden their skills to encompass obesity management. “As the field evolves, perhaps we should start training our fellows about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Kuna said.
Significant impact on OSA and CPAP
“Obesity is a risk factor for sleep apnea,” stated Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, professor, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, “so with increased use of these GLP-1 agents for weight reduction, we would anticipate a significant impact on both OSA severity and need for CPAP.” Speaking in a CHEST Physician interview and referring to the Kuna et al. study, she stated, “Since cessation of the drug can lead to rebound weight gain, the emphasis on healthy eating and exercise is crucial to management.” Dr. Faiz said further, “It’s important to note that there are other weight-independent mechanisms for OSA, including upper airway anatomy, mechanisms that modulate upper airway stability, chemoreceptor sensitivity, visceral adiposity, neuroendocrine control, sleep quality, and other aspects of OSA pathophysiology yet to be discovered.”
Cost an obstacle for some
“For many insurances, criteria for coverage include obesity and prediabetes based on HbA1c. For some not meeting requirements, they will have to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Faiz said. She pointed to a Respirology (doi: 10.1111/resp.14545) commentary in which Garun S. Hamilton, MBBS, PhD, and Bradley A. Edwards, PhD, underscored the nearly 1 billion people worldwide with OSA, most of whom are overweight or obese. “GLP-1 agonists are so effective that they have become a worldwide phenomenon. The high cost of the medications combined with the high prevalence of OSA means that there is no way that universal healthcare funding schemes can afford these medications, unless strict criteria are in place to prioritize those who can gain subsidized access and/or a duration of use limit is in place,” they stated. “This will no doubt exacerbate inequities in healthcare access and outcome between those from lower versus higher socioeconomic populations, as the attributable benefit from GLP-1 agonists is likely to be dependent on a patient’s ability to afford them.”
Beyond health equity concerns
The evidence for clinically relevant reductions in weight and resultant lowering of other adverse risk factors supports a wide embrace of Ozempic-type drugs. Standing alongside, however, are the cautionary pleas of nutrition/lifestyle-focused health advocates. They urge that prescriptions for nonpharmacological strategies that promote better sleep, healthier food choices, and more exercise need sharper highlighting and strong incentivizing.
Dr. Faiz said, “The availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods can impact food intake and weight. Specifically, in a small study of 20 inpatient adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center randomized to either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 14 days, increased caloric intake and weight gain were found in the ultra-processed cohort.” In the study Dr. Faiz cited (doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008), meals were matched for calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Analysis showed a 4-pound weight difference between groups within 2 weeks: The ultra-processed cohort had taken in an extra 500 calories a day and had gained weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .009]) and body fat while the unprocessed food group lost weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .007]) and body fat.
“Thus, the type of foods we opt for can also have significant impact,” Dr. Faiz stated.
Dr. Faiz and Dr. Kuna said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Will the weight reduction success with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists translate into strong reductions in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Will those potential OSA benefits obviate the need in many for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)?
“I think it’s a game changer for helping people who are overweight or obese,” Samuel T. Kuna, MD, chief of sleep medicine at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview with CHEST Physician. “I think we’re just starting out on a very exciting new era. We finally have quite effective treatments for this population.” Dr. Kuna’s Sleep AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) 2021 study (doi: 10.1164/rccm.201912-2511OC) found that participants with OSA and type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving intensive lifestyle interventions for weight loss had reduced OSA severity at 10 years, and that OSA remission at 10 years was more common with intensive lifestyle intervention than with diabetes support and education.
Potential for OSA impact
In a JAMA Network Open/Pulmonary Medicine article on a 2022 study (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.8212) conducted among 89 Spanish male adults with moderate to severe OSA and body mass index of 25 or greater, participants received CPAP therapy with or without 8 weeks of weight loss and lifestyle intervention. The primary endpoint of apnea-hypopnea index at 6 months showed the intervention to yield “clinically meaningful and sustainable improvements in OSA.”
Dr. Kuna stated, “I don’t think these [weight loss] agents eliminate the importance of behavioral modification, of changing diet, of reducing highly processed foods and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.” He acknowledged, however, that behavioral endeavors have been in general disappointing with respect to patients’ ability to achieve weight loss. “These medicines really open up a new strategy to help patients do that,” he added.
Dr. Kuna pointed to a recent (2023) Grunstein et al. perspective article (doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsad224) published in Sleep citing phase 3 trial results showing placebo-subtracted weight loss percentages. With subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide 2.4 mg they were 12.6% in patients with obesity or overweight with one or more weight-related comorbidities (but not type 2 diabetes), and 17.8% with tirzepatide (15 mg, SC, weekly), a combination GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, in a similar population. The authors stated, “These new agents, provided they are available to persons who need them most — who are often socioeconomically disadvantaged — could revolutionize the management of obesity and its many complications, including OSA.” Grunstein et al. also, noted that the number of studies showing improvement in cardiometabolic outcomes (eg, blood pressure) with pre-incretin OSA therapies are “minimal.” They underscored, however, the need for risk/benefit/cost-effectiveness data on incretin therapies, and cited evidence that withdrawal from incretin treatment brings back weight gain and adverse cardiometabolic factors. They also indicated key areas of uncertainty requiring research: gender-based response differences to incretins (women predominate in most weight loss studies, but OSA is more common in men), how CPAP users will adapt to incretin OSA benefits, direct comparisons of impact on OSA with incretins vs mechanical therapy, and understanding which target populations derive the most benefit with incretin therapies.
Despite the unanswered questions, the direction was unequivocally clear for Grunstein et al.: “Ultimately, the focus must shift away from mechanical therapy for obesity-related OSA towards weight loss, the latter which is likely to produce multiple health outcome improvements that are superior, including all-cause mortality.”
Dr. Kuna agreed with the Sleep article authors that one implication of this “incretin revolution” is that sleep physicians will have to broaden their skills to encompass obesity management. “As the field evolves, perhaps we should start training our fellows about how to manage these patients,” Dr. Kuna said.
Significant impact on OSA and CPAP
“Obesity is a risk factor for sleep apnea,” stated Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, professor, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, “so with increased use of these GLP-1 agents for weight reduction, we would anticipate a significant impact on both OSA severity and need for CPAP.” Speaking in a CHEST Physician interview and referring to the Kuna et al. study, she stated, “Since cessation of the drug can lead to rebound weight gain, the emphasis on healthy eating and exercise is crucial to management.” Dr. Faiz said further, “It’s important to note that there are other weight-independent mechanisms for OSA, including upper airway anatomy, mechanisms that modulate upper airway stability, chemoreceptor sensitivity, visceral adiposity, neuroendocrine control, sleep quality, and other aspects of OSA pathophysiology yet to be discovered.”
Cost an obstacle for some
“For many insurances, criteria for coverage include obesity and prediabetes based on HbA1c. For some not meeting requirements, they will have to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Faiz said. She pointed to a Respirology (doi: 10.1111/resp.14545) commentary in which Garun S. Hamilton, MBBS, PhD, and Bradley A. Edwards, PhD, underscored the nearly 1 billion people worldwide with OSA, most of whom are overweight or obese. “GLP-1 agonists are so effective that they have become a worldwide phenomenon. The high cost of the medications combined with the high prevalence of OSA means that there is no way that universal healthcare funding schemes can afford these medications, unless strict criteria are in place to prioritize those who can gain subsidized access and/or a duration of use limit is in place,” they stated. “This will no doubt exacerbate inequities in healthcare access and outcome between those from lower versus higher socioeconomic populations, as the attributable benefit from GLP-1 agonists is likely to be dependent on a patient’s ability to afford them.”
Beyond health equity concerns
The evidence for clinically relevant reductions in weight and resultant lowering of other adverse risk factors supports a wide embrace of Ozempic-type drugs. Standing alongside, however, are the cautionary pleas of nutrition/lifestyle-focused health advocates. They urge that prescriptions for nonpharmacological strategies that promote better sleep, healthier food choices, and more exercise need sharper highlighting and strong incentivizing.
Dr. Faiz said, “The availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods can impact food intake and weight. Specifically, in a small study of 20 inpatient adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center randomized to either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 14 days, increased caloric intake and weight gain were found in the ultra-processed cohort.” In the study Dr. Faiz cited (doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008), meals were matched for calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Analysis showed a 4-pound weight difference between groups within 2 weeks: The ultra-processed cohort had taken in an extra 500 calories a day and had gained weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .009]) and body fat while the unprocessed food group lost weight (0.9 ± 0.3 kg [P = .007]) and body fat.
“Thus, the type of foods we opt for can also have significant impact,” Dr. Faiz stated.
Dr. Faiz and Dr. Kuna said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Eli Lilly to Ask FDA to Approve Weight Loss Drug for Sleep Apnea
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
Results from a preliminary clinical trial demonstrated the obesity drug, tirzepatide, effectively treated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to information sent to investors of the pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly.
Indiana-based Eli Lilly sells tirzepatide under the brand name Zepbound, which was approved by the FDA in November to treat overweight and obesity. Tirzepatide is also marketed under the name Mounjaro to treat diabetes, and it’s among the same class of drugs as other well-known weight loss and diabetes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy.
The newly announced results came from a pair of studies that followed people with moderate to severe OSA who also had obesity. People in the study took tirzepatide, which is given by injection, for one year. About 70% of people in the studies were men.
The findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and the preliminary results were announced by Eli Lilly because of reporting requirements related to information that could affect stock prices. The company indicated that detailed results will be presented at a conference of the American Diabetes Association in June and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration of publication. The company also plans to submit the information to the FDA for approval consideration mid-year, the investor news release stated.
People in the study taking tirzepatide on average experienced 63% fewer instances of reduced oxygen due to breathing changes, or events when breathing entirely stopped, Eli Lilly reported.
A sleep expert from Washington University in St. Louis told The New York Times the initial findings were extremely positive and noted that tirzepatide works to treat the underlying cause of sleep apnea, rather than current treatments that just address symptoms.
Tirzepatide “is a great alternative for people who are obese and can’t use CPAP or are on CPAP and want to improve the effect,” Eric Landsness, MD, PhD, told The New York Times.
Eli Lilly indicated the most commonly reported adverse events in the studies were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and constipation.
An estimated 39 million people have OSA and about 33 million people use CPAP machines, according to The National Council on Aging. The condition has been increasingly diagnosed in recent years and becomes more likely to affect people as they get older.
A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID Vaccinations Less Prevalent in Marginalized Patients
Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.
A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.
“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
The findings were published in CMAJ.
Need vs Resources
Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.
“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.
The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.
The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.
Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).
The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.
“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.
The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.
“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
Helping Primary Care Physicians
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”
Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.
“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”
The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.
A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.
“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
The findings were published in CMAJ.
Need vs Resources
Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.
“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.
The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.
The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.
Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).
The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.
“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.
The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.
“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
Helping Primary Care Physicians
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”
Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.
“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”
The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care physicians who served marginalized communities had the highest proportion of patients who were unvaccinated against COVID-19, Canadian data suggested.
A study of more than 9000 family physicians in Ontario also found that the physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male, to have trained outside Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than their counterparts who had lower proportions of unvaccinated patients.
“The family physicians with the most unvaccinated patients were also more likely to be solo practitioners and less likely to practice in team-based models, meaning they may have fewer support staff in their clinics,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.
The findings were published in CMAJ.
Need vs Resources
Dr. Shuldiner and her team had been working on a project to provide additional support to family physicians with large numbers of patients who had not received their COVID-19 vaccinations. Their goal was to encourage family physicians to support these patients in getting vaccinated.
“As we were designing this project, we wondered how these physicians and their patients might differ. What characteristics might they have that would enable us to design and implement an intervention with high uptake and impact?” she said.
The researchers conducted a cross-sectional, population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets in Ontario. They calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 who were enrolled with each comprehensive care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of unvaccinated patients, and identified 906 physicians in the top 10% of unvaccinated patients. These physicians were compared with the remaining 90% of family physicians.
The physicians with the highest proportion of unvaccinated patients cared for 259,130 unvaccinated patients as of November 1, 2021. The proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in this group was 74.2%. In comparison, the proportion of patients who received two or more doses of the vaccine was 87.0% in the remaining 90% of physicians.
Physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients were more likely to be male (64.6% vs 48.1%), to have trained outside Canada (46.9% vs 29.3%), to be older (mean age, 56 years vs 49 years), and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model (49% vs 28%).
The study also found that patients enrolled with physicians in the most unvaccinated group tended to live in places with more ethnic diversity, higher material deprivation, and lower incomes. The proportion of recent immigrants was higher in this group.
“Clinics or practices with a large number of unvaccinated patients could be viable targets for efforts to coordinate public health and primary care,” said Dr. Shuldiner.
The findings indicate “the ongoing inverse relationship between the need for care and its accessibility and utilization. In other words, the practices with the highest need receive the fewest resources,” she noted.
“We know that relationships with trusted family physicians can positively influence patients’ decisions. Our study highlights the need to create equitable systems and processes that create opportunities for primary care teams to play a crucial role in influencing general and COVID-19-specific vaccine-related decision-making.”
Helping Primary Care Physicians
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Sabrina Wong, RN, PhD, professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, said, “They did quite a nice analysis to show this using administrative data, and I think the information they’ve uncovered will be helpful in trying to fill the gaps and provide these practitioners with more support.”
Dr. Wong did not participate in the study. “The information they provide will be useful in helping us to move forward working with underserved, underresourced communities and also hopefully provide the clinicians, family physicians, and nurse practitioners working in these areas with more resources,” she said.
“The authors also point out that there needs to be more collaboration between public health and primary care to support these communities in their efforts to get the vaccines to the people in these communities who need them.”
The study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant. Dr. Shuldiner and Dr. Wong reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CMAJ
4 Years In, a Sobering Look at Long COVID Progress
Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)
What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.
Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.
Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.
While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.
Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.
Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.
Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.
Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.
Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
Promising Treatments Have Emerged
Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.
Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.
“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.
Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.
“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.
Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.
Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.
It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies
Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.
Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.
Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.
Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.
Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.
She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress
Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.
“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.
He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.
“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)
What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.
Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.
Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.
While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.
Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.
Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.
Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.
Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.
Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
Promising Treatments Have Emerged
Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.
Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.
“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.
Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.
“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.
Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.
Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.
It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies
Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.
Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.
Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.
Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.
Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.
She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress
Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.
“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.
He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.
“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Four years ago in the spring of 2020, physicians and patients coined the term “long COVID” to describe a form of the viral infection from which recovery seemed impossible. (And the old nickname “long-haulers” seems so quaint now.)
What started as a pandemic that killed nearly 3 million people globally in 2020 alone would turn into a chronic disease causing a long list of symptoms — from extreme fatigue, to brain fog, tremors, nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and more.
Today, 6.4% of Americans report symptoms of long COVID, and many have never recovered.
Still, we’ve come a long way, although there’s much we don’t understand about the condition. At the very least, physicians have a greater understanding that long COVID exists and can cause serious long-term symptoms.
While physicians may not have a blanket diagnostic tool that works for all patients with long COVID, they have refined existing tests for more accurate results, said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the University of California Los Angeles Long COVID Program at UCLA Health.
Also, a range of new treatments, now undergoing clinical trials, have emerged that have proved effective in managing long COVID symptoms.
Catecholamine testing, for example, is now commonly used to diagnose long COVID, particularly in those who have dysautonomia, a condition caused by dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system and marked by dizziness, low blood pressure, nausea, and brain fog.
Very high levels of the neurotransmitter, for example, were shown to indicate long COVID in a January 2021 study published in the journal Clinical Medicine.
Certain biomarkers have also been shown indicative of the condition, including low serotonin levels. A study published this year in Cell found lower serotonin levels in patients with long COVID driven by low levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the condition.
Still, said Dr. Viswanathan, long COVID is a disease diagnosed by figuring out what a patient does not have — by ruling out other causes — rather than what they do. “It’s still a moving target,” she said, meaning that the disease is always changing based on the variant of acute COVID.
Promising Treatments Have Emerged
Dysautonomia, and especially the associated brain fog, fatigue, and dizziness, are now common conditions. As a result, physicians have gotten better at treating them. The vagus nerve is the main nerve of the parasympathetic nervous system that controls everything from digestion to mental health. A February 2022 pilot study suggested a link between vagus nerve dysfunction and some long COVID symptoms.
Vagus nerve stimulation is one form of treatment which involves using a device to stimulate the vagus nerve with electrical impulses. Dr. Viswanathan has been using the treatment in patients with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, and depression — results, she contends, have been positive.
“This is something tangible that we can offer to patients,” she said.
Curative treatments for long COVID remain elusive, but doctors have many more tools for symptom management than before, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a global expert on long COVID and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.
For example, physicians are using beta-blockers to treat postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a symptom of long COVID that happens when the heart rate increases rapidly after someone stands up or lies down. Beta-blockers, such as the off-label medication ivabradine, have been used clinically to control heart rate, according to a March 2022 study published in the journal HeartRhythm Case Reports.
“It’s not a cure, but beta-blockers can help patients manage their symptoms,” said Dr. Al-Aly.
Additionally, some patients respond well to low-dose naltrexone for the treatment of extreme fatigue associated with long COVID. A January 2024 article in the journal Clinical Therapeutics found that fatigue symptoms improved in patients taking the medication.
Dr. Al-Aly said doctors treating patients with long COVID are getting better at pinpointing the phenotype or manifestation of the condition and diagnosing a treatment accordingly. Treating long COVID fatigue is not the same as treating POTS or symptoms of headache and joint pain.
It’s still all about the management of symptoms and doctors lack any US Food and Drug Administration–approved medications specifically for the condition.
Clinical Trials Exploring New Therapies
Still, a number of large clinical trials currently underway may change that, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.
Two clinical trials headed by Dr. Putrino’s lab are looking into repurposing two HIV antivirals to see whether they affect the levels of circulating SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body that may cause long COVID. The hope is that the antivirals Truvada and maraviroc can reduce the «reactivation of latent virus» that, said Dr. Putrino, causes lingering long COVID symptoms.
Ongoing trials are looking into the promise of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies, produced from cells made by cloning a unique white blood cell, as a treatment option. The trials are investigating whether these antibodies may similarly target viral reservoirs that are causing persistence of symptoms in some patients.
Other trials are underway through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RECOVER initiative in which more than 17,000 patients are enrolled, the largest study of its kind, said Grace McComsey, MD.
Dr. McComsey, who leads the study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, said that after following patients for up to 4 years researchers have gathered “a massive repository of information” they hope will help scientists crack the code of this very complex disease.
She and other RECOVER researchers have recently published studies on a variety of findings, reporting in February, for example, that COVID infections may trigger other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes. Another recent finding showed that people with HIV are at a higher risk for complications due to acute COVID-19.
Lack of Urgency Holds Back Progress
Still, others like Dr. Al-Aly and Dr. Putrino felt that the initiative isn’t moving fast enough. Dr. Al-Aly said that the NIH needs to “get its act together” and do more for long COVID. In the future, he said that we need to double down on our efforts to expand funding and increase urgency to better understand the mechanism of disease, risk factors, and treatments, as well as societal and economic implications.
“We did trials for COVID-19 vaccines at warp speed, but we’re doing trials for long COVID at a snail’s pace,” he said.
Dr. Al-Aly is concerned about the chronic nature of the disease and how it affects patients down the line. His large-scale study published last month in the journal Science looked specifically at chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by the infection and its long-term impact on patients.
He’s concerned about the practical implications for people who are weighted down with symptoms for multiple years.
“Being fatigued and ill for a few months is one thing, but being at home for 5 years is a totally different ballgame.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.