CHEST Physician

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

E-cigarettes entered the market as consumer products without comprehensive toxicological testing,based on the assessment that they were 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Further, consumer dvertising suggests that e-cigarettes are a good alternative to conventional combustible cigarettes and can serve as a gateway to quitting smoking.

However, hen considering damage to the endothelium and toxicity, e-cigarettes have a negative impact like that of conventional cigarettes. Moreover, switching to e-cigarettes often leads to dual use, said Stefan Andreas, MD, director of the Lungenfachklinik in Immenhausen, Germany, at the Congress of the German Respiratory Society and Intensive Care Medicine. 
 

Subclinical Atherosclerosis

Because e-cigarettes have emerged relatively recently, long-term studies on their cardiac consequences are not yet available. Dr. Andreas explained that the impact on endothelial function is relevant for risk assessment. Endothelial function is a biomarker for early, subclinical atherosclerosis. “If endothelial function is impaired, the risk for heart attack and stroke is significantly increased 5-10 years later,” said Dr. Andreas.

The results of a crossover study showed reduced vascular elasticity after consuming both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The study included 20 smokers, and endothelial function was measured using flow-mediated vasodilation.

Significant effects on the vessels were also found in a study of 31 participants who had never smoked. The study participants inhaled a nicotine-free aerosol from e-cigarettes. Before and after, parameters of endothelial function were examined using a 3.0-T MRI. After aerosol inhalation, the resistance index was 2.3% higher (P < .05), and flow-mediated vascular dilation was reduced by 34% (P < .001).

A recent review involving 372 participants from China showed that e-cigarettes lead to an increase in pulse wave velocity, with a difference of 3.08 (P < .001). “Pulse wave velocity is also a marker of endothelial function: The stiffer the vessels, the higher the pulse wave velocity,” said Dr. Andreas. The authors of the review concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted as a healthier alternative to tobacco smoking.”
 

No Harmless Alternative

A recent review compared the effects of tobacco smoking and e-cigarettes. The results showed that vaping e-cigarettes causes oxidative stress, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and related cardiovascular consequences. The authors attributed the findings to overlapping toxic compounds in vapor and tobacco smoke and similar pathomechanical features of vaping and smoking. Although the toxic mixture in smoke is more complex, both e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes “impaired endothelial function to a similar extent,” they wrote. The authors attributed this finding to oxidative stress as the central mechanism.

“There is increasing evidence that e-cigarettes are not a harmless alternative to tobacco cigarettes,” wrote Thomas Münzel, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Mainz and his team in their 2020 review, which examined studies in humans and animals. They provided an overview of the effects of tobacco/hookah smoking and e-cigarette vaping on endothelial function. They also pointed to emerging adverse effects on the proteome, transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and circadian clock.

Finally, a toxicological review of e-cigarettes also found alarmingly high levels of carcinogens and toxins that could have long-term effects on other organs, including the development of neurological symptoms, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and cavities.

Dr. Andreas observed that even small amounts, such as those obtained through secondhand smoking, can be harmful. In 2007, Dr. Andreas and his colleagues showed that even low exposure to tobacco smoke can lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events.
 

Conflicts of Interest 

Dr. Andreas recommended closely examining the studies that suggest that e-cigarettes are less risky. “It is noticeable that there is a significant difference depending on whether publications were supported by the tobacco industry or not,” he emphasized.

Danish scientists found that a conflict of interest (COI) has a strong influence on study results. “In studies without a COI, e-cigarettes are found to cause damage 95% of the time. In contrast, when there is a strong conflict of interest, the result is often ‘no harm,’” said Dr. Andreas.

This effect is quite relevant for the discussion of e-cigarettes. “If scientists make a critical statement in a position paper, there will always be someone who says, ‘No, it’s different, there are these and those publications.’ The true nature of interest-driven publications on e-cigarettes is not always easy to discern,” said Dr. Andreas.
 

No Gateway to Quitting 

E-cigarettes are used in clinical studies for tobacco cessation. The results of a randomized study showed that significantly more smokers who were switched to e-cigarettes quit smoking, compared with controls. But there was no significant difference in complete smoking cessation between groups. Moreover, 45% of smokers who switched to e-cigarettes became dual users, compared with 11% of controls.

“Translating these results means that for one person who quits smoking by using e-cigarettes, they gain five people who use both traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes,” explained Dr. Andreas.

In their recent review, Münzel and colleagues pointed out that the assessment that e-cigarettes could help with quitting might be wrong. Rather, it seems that “e-cigarettes have the opposite effect.” They also note that the age of initiation for e-cigarettes is generally lower than for tobacco cigarettes: Consumption often starts at age 13 or 14 years. And the consumption of e-cigarettes among children and adolescents increased by 7% from 2016 to 2023.

A meta-analysis published at the end of February also shows that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. They are more dangerous than not smoking, and dual use is more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes alone. “There is a need to reassess the assumption that e-cigarette use provides substantial harm reduction across all cigarette-caused diseases, particularly accounting for dual use,” wrote the authors.

“One must always consider that e-cigarettes have only been available for a relatively short time. We can only see the cumulative toxicity in 10, 20 years when we have patients who have smoked e-cigarettes only for 20 years,” said Dr. Andreas. Ultimately, however, e-cigarettes promote dual use and, consequently, additive toxicity.
 

Nicotine Replacement Therapies 

Quitting smoking reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and premature death by 40%, even among patients with cardiovascular disease, according to a Cochrane meta-analysis. Smoking cessation reduces the risk for cardiovascular death by 39%, the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events by 43%, the risk for heart attack by 36%, the risk for stroke by 30%, and overall mortality by 40%.

Quitting smoking is the most effective measure for risk reduction, as a meta-analysis of 20 studies in patients with coronary heart disease found. Smoking cessation was associated with a 36% risk reduction compared with 29% risk reduction for statin therapy, 23% risk reduction with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors and 15% risk reduction with aspirin.

Dr. Andreas emphasized that nicotine replacement therapies are well-researched and safe even in cardiovascular disease, as shown by a US study that included patients who had sustained a heart attack. A group of the participants was treated with nicotine patches for 10 weeks, while the other group received a placebo. After 14 weeks, 21% of the nicotine patch group achieved abstinence vs 9% of the placebo group (P = .001). Transdermal nicotine application does not lead to a significant increase in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

The German “Nonsmoker Heroes” app has proven to be an effective means of behavioral therapeutic coaching. A recent study of it included 17 study centers with 661 participants. About 21% of the subjects had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 19% had asthma. Smoking onset occurred at age 16 years. The subjects were highly dependent: > 72% had at least moderate dependence, > 58% had high to very high dependence, and the population had an average of 3.6 quit attempts. The odds ratio for self-reported abstinence was 2.2 after 6 months. “The app is not only effective, but also can be prescribed on an extrabudgetary basis,” said Dr. Andreas.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) have a high risk for serious and fatal infections, with age, inflammation, and corticosteroid therapy further increasing this risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients with RA who have extra-articular manifestations such as ILD are highly susceptible to infections, but information on the types of infections, risk factors, and associations of infections with hospitalization and mortality is limited.
• This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated infections in a cohort of 148 patients with RA-ILD (average age, 70 years; 57% women) recruited from 11 university hospitals in Spain between March 2015 and March 2023.
• Joint, lung, and any infection-related variables were evaluated using clinical and laboratory evaluations at baseline and selected time points till the end of the follow-up period (mean, 56.7 months).
• Researchers also investigated the common infectious sites, the etiology of the infection, vaccination status, variables associated with lung function, and clinical-therapeutic variables associated with RA.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period, almost all (96%) patients had at least one infection, with the median time to first infection being 21.2 months and 65% of the deaths being directly related to infections.
• Respiratory infections were the most common first infections (74%) and led to death in 80% of the patients. Urinary tract (9.9%) and skin and soft tissue (9.1%) infections were the second and third most common first infections, respectively.
• Most infections were caused by SARS-CoV-2 (33.5%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (11.9%), Escherichia coli (11.9%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (11.1%), with mortality at 25.8% for SARS-CoV-2, 12.9% for P aeruginosa (12.9%), and 9.6% for pneumococci (9.6%).
• Increased age, disease activity, and the use of corticosteroids were associated with an elevated risk for infection and mortality in patients with RA-ILD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results demonstrate a high occurrence of serious infections among these patients, occurring early, recurring frequently, and proving fatal in 65% of cases,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, MD, PhD, from Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain, and published online March 27 in Frontiers in Immunology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings of this study have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of a control group also limited the ability of this study to establish any causal relationships between ILD and the clinical outcomes analyzed.

DISCLOSURE:

This study was supported by Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud and Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians who misuse the “copy-and-paste” feature in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) can face serious consequences, including lost hospital privileges, fines, and malpractice lawsuits.

In California, a locum tenens physician lost her hospital privileges after repeatedly violating the copy-and-paste policy developed at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa, California.

“Her use of copy and paste impaired continuity of care,” said Alvin Gore, MD, who was involved in the case as the hospital’s director of utilization management.

Dr. Gore said the hospital warned the doctor, but she did not change her behavior. He did not identify the physician, citing confidentiality. The case occurred more than 5 years ago. Since then, several physicians have been called onto the carpet for violations of the policy, but no one else has lost privileges, Dr. Gore said.

Copy-paste practices can save doctors’ time when dealing with cumbersome EHR systems, but they also can lead to redundant, outdated, or inconsistent information that can compromise patient care, experts said.

“EHRs are imperfect, time consuming, and somewhat rigid,” said Robert A. Dowling, MD, a practice management consultant for large medical groups. “If physicians can’t easily figure out a complex system, they’re likely to use a workaround like copy and paste.”

Copy-and-paste abuse has also led to fines. A six-member cardiology group in Somerville, New Jersey, paid a $422,000 fine to the federal government to settle copy-and-paste charges, following an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the Report on Medicare Compliance.

This big settlement, announced in 2016, is a rare case in which physicians were charged with copy-and-paste fraud — intentionally using it to enhance reimbursement.

More commonly, Medicare contractors identify physicians who unintentionally received overpayments through sloppy copy-and-paste practices, according to a coding and documentation auditor who worked for 10 years at a Medicare contractor in Pennsylvania.

Such cases are frequent and are handled confidentially, said the auditor, who asked not to be identified. Practices must return the overpayment, and the physicians involved are “contacted and educated,” she said.

Copy and paste can also show up in malpractice lawsuits. In a 2012 survey, 53% of professional liability carriers said they had handled an EHR-related malpractice claim, and 71% of those claims included copy-and-paste use.

One such case, described by CRICO, a malpractice carrier based in Massachusetts, took place in 2012-2013. “A patient developed amiodarone toxicity because the patient›s history and medications were copied from a previous note that did not document that the patient was already on the medication,» CRICO stated.

“If you do face a malpractice claim, copying and pasting the same note repeatedly makes you look clinically inattentive, even if the copy/pasted material is unrelated to the adverse event,” CRICO officials noted in a report.
 

The Push to Use Copy and Paste

Copy and paste is a great time-saver. One study linked its use to lower burnout rates. However, it can easily introduce errors into the medical record. “This can be a huge problem,” Dr. Dowling said. “If, for example, you copy forward a previous note that said the patient had blood in their urine ‘6 days ago,’ it is immediately inaccurate.”

Practices can control use of copy and paste through coding clerks who read the medical records and then educate doctors when problems crop up.

The Pennsylvania auditor, who now works for a large group practice, said the group has very few copy-and-paste problems because of her role. “Not charting responsibly rarely happens because I work very closely with the doctors,” she said.

Dr. Dowling, however, reports that many physicians continue to overuse copy and paste. He points to a 2022 study which found that, on average, half the clinical note at one health system had been copied and pasted.

One solution might be to sanction physicians for overusing copy and paste, just as they’re sometimes penalized for not completing their notes on time with a reduction in income or possible termination.

Practices could periodically audit medical records for excessive copy-paste use. EHR systems like Epic’s can indicate how much of a doctor’s note has been copied. But Dr. Dowling doesn’t know of any practices that do this.

“There is little appetite to introduce a new enforcement activity for physicians,” he said. “Physicians would see it just as a way to make their lives more difficult than they already are.”
 

Monitoring in Hospitals and Health Systems

Some hospitals and health systems have gone as far as disabling copy-and-paste function in their EHR systems. However, enterprising physicians have found ways around these blocks.

Some institutions have also introduced formal policies, directing doctors on how they can copy and paste, including Banner Health in Arizona, Northwell Health in New York, UConn Health in Connecticut, University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Toledo in Ohio.

Definitions of what is not acceptable vary, but most of these policies oppose copying someone else’s notes and direct physicians to indicate the origin of pasted material.

Santa Rosa Memorial’s policy is quite specific. It still allows some copy and paste but stipulates that it cannot be used for the chief complaint, the review of systems, the physical examination, and the assessment and plan in the medical record, except when the information can’t be obtained directly from the patient. Also, physicians must summarize test results and provide references to other providers’ notes.

Dr. Gore said he and a physician educator who works with physicians on clinical documentation proposed the policy about a decade ago. When physicians on staff were asked to comment, some said they would be opposed to a complete ban, but they generally agreed that copy and paste was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, he said.

The hospital could have simply adopted guidelines, as opposed to rules with consequences, but “we wanted our policy to have teeth,” Dr. Gore said.

When violators are identified, Dr. Gore says he meets with them confidentially and educates them on proper use of copy and paste. Sometimes, the department head is brought in. Some physicians go on to violate the policy again and have to attend another meeting, he said, but aside from the one case, no one else has been disciplined.

It’s unclear how many physicians have faced consequences for misusing copy-paste features — such data aren’t tracked, and sanctions are likely to be handled confidentially, as a personnel matter.

Geisinger Health in Pennsylvania regularly monitors copy-and-paste usage and makes it part of physicians’ professional evaluations, according to a 2022 presentation by a Geisinger official.

Meanwhile, even when systems don’t have specific policies, they may still discipline physicians when copy and paste leads to errors. Scott MacDonald, MD, chief medical information officer at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, California, told this news organization that copy-and-paste abuse has come up a few times over the years in investigations of clinical errors.
 

Holding Physicians Accountable

Physicians can be held accountable for copy and paste by Medicare contractors and in malpractice lawsuits, but the most obvious way is at their place of work: A practice, hospital, or health system.

One physician has lost staff privileges, but more typically, coding clerks or colleagues talk to offending physicians and try to educate them on proper use of copy and paste.

Educational outreach, however, is often ineffective, said Robert Hirschtick, MD, a retired teaching physician at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “The physician may be directed to take an online course,” he said. “When they take the course, the goal is to get it done with, rather than to learn something new.”

Dr. Hirschtick’s articles on copy and paste, including one titled, “Sloppy and Paste,” have put him at the front lines of the debate. “This is an ethical issue,” he said in an interview. He agrees that some forms of copy and paste are permissible, but in many cases, “it is intellectually dishonest and potentially even plagiarism,” he said.

Dr. Hirschtick argues that copy-and-paste policies need more teeth. “Tying violations to compensation would be quite effective,” he said. “Even if physicians were rarely penalized, just knowing that it could happen to you might be enough. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing this.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As avian influenza continues to spread among wild bird populations in the European Union (EU), scientists have described a wide range of factors that could drive the virus to spread efficiently among humans, thereby increasing its pandemic potential.

Although transmission of avian influenza A(H5N1) from infected birds to humans is rare, “new strains carrying potential mutations for mammalian adaptation” could occur, according to a report issued on April 3 by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority. The analysis identified a threat of strains currently circulating outside Europe that could enter the EU and the wider European Economic Area (EEA).

“If avian A(H5N1) influenza viruses acquire the ability to spread efficiently among humans, large-scale transmission could occur due to the lack of immune defenses against H5 viruses in humans,” the report warned.
 

Evolution of Avian Influenza Remains Hard to Predict

However, despite many occurrences of human exposure to avian influenza since 2020, “no symptomatic or productive infection in a human has been identified in the EU/EEA,” the scientists stated. Furthermore, after almost three decades of human exposure to the A(H5N1) virus of the Gs/GD lineage, the virus has not yet acquired the mutations required for airborne transmissibility between humans. However, it remains “difficult to predict the evolutionary direction the virus will take in the future,” the scientists assessed.

“Clearly, humans are being exposed in the current USA cattle outbreak,” Professor James Wood, infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, told this news organization. “But, arguably, what is more significant is how few cases there have been with this virus lineage and its close relatives, despite massive global exposures over the last 3 years. All diagnosed human cases seem to have been singletons, with no evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, sees no evidence of an imminent spillover of avian influenza from birds. But he told this news organization: “The trouble is, the clock resets every minute. Every time the virus has come out of a bird and gone somewhere, the clock is reset. So you can never say that just because it hasn’t happened since whenever, it’s never going to happen.”

 

Preventive Measures Recommended

The European report recommended a range of cautionary measures that included enhanced surveillance, access to rapid diagnostics, and sharing of genetic sequence data. It urged EU authorities to work together, adopting a One Health perspective, to limit the exposure of mammals, including humans, to avian influenza viruses. 

Sarah Pitt, a microbiologist at the University of Brighton, United Kingdom, said the emphasis on authorities taking a One Health approach was sound. “You’re looking at humans, animals, plants, and the environment and how they’re all closely interacted,” she told this news organization. “Putting all those things together is actually going to be good for human health. So they’ve mentioned One Health a lot and I’m sure that’s on purpose because it’s the latest buzzword, and presumably it’s a way of getting governments to take it seriously.” 

Overall, Dr. Pitt believes the document is designed to move zoonotic infectious diseases a bit higher up the agenda. “They should have been higher up the agenda before COVID,” she said.

The report also called for consideration of preventative measures, such as vaccination of poultry flocks. 

Overall, Dr. Jones assesses the European report as “a reworking of what’s been pretty well covered over the years.” Despite extensive work by scientists in the field, he said: “I’m not sure we’re any better at predicting an emerging virus than we’ve ever been. I would point out that we didn’t spot SARS-CoV-2 coming, even though we had SARS-CoV-1 a few years earlier. Nobody spotted the 2009 pandemic from influenza, even though there was a lot of surveillance around at the time.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As avian influenza continues to spread among wild bird populations in the European Union (EU), scientists have described a wide range of factors that could drive the virus to spread efficiently among humans, thereby increasing its pandemic potential.

Although transmission of avian influenza A(H5N1) from infected birds to humans is rare, “new strains carrying potential mutations for mammalian adaptation” could occur, according to a report issued on April 3 by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority. The analysis identified a threat of strains currently circulating outside Europe that could enter the EU and the wider European Economic Area (EEA).

“If avian A(H5N1) influenza viruses acquire the ability to spread efficiently among humans, large-scale transmission could occur due to the lack of immune defenses against H5 viruses in humans,” the report warned.
 

Evolution of Avian Influenza Remains Hard to Predict

However, despite many occurrences of human exposure to avian influenza since 2020, “no symptomatic or productive infection in a human has been identified in the EU/EEA,” the scientists stated. Furthermore, after almost three decades of human exposure to the A(H5N1) virus of the Gs/GD lineage, the virus has not yet acquired the mutations required for airborne transmissibility between humans. However, it remains “difficult to predict the evolutionary direction the virus will take in the future,” the scientists assessed.

“Clearly, humans are being exposed in the current USA cattle outbreak,” Professor James Wood, infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, told this news organization. “But, arguably, what is more significant is how few cases there have been with this virus lineage and its close relatives, despite massive global exposures over the last 3 years. All diagnosed human cases seem to have been singletons, with no evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, sees no evidence of an imminent spillover of avian influenza from birds. But he told this news organization: “The trouble is, the clock resets every minute. Every time the virus has come out of a bird and gone somewhere, the clock is reset. So you can never say that just because it hasn’t happened since whenever, it’s never going to happen.”

 

Preventive Measures Recommended

The European report recommended a range of cautionary measures that included enhanced surveillance, access to rapid diagnostics, and sharing of genetic sequence data. It urged EU authorities to work together, adopting a One Health perspective, to limit the exposure of mammals, including humans, to avian influenza viruses. 

Sarah Pitt, a microbiologist at the University of Brighton, United Kingdom, said the emphasis on authorities taking a One Health approach was sound. “You’re looking at humans, animals, plants, and the environment and how they’re all closely interacted,” she told this news organization. “Putting all those things together is actually going to be good for human health. So they’ve mentioned One Health a lot and I’m sure that’s on purpose because it’s the latest buzzword, and presumably it’s a way of getting governments to take it seriously.” 

Overall, Dr. Pitt believes the document is designed to move zoonotic infectious diseases a bit higher up the agenda. “They should have been higher up the agenda before COVID,” she said.

The report also called for consideration of preventative measures, such as vaccination of poultry flocks. 

Overall, Dr. Jones assesses the European report as “a reworking of what’s been pretty well covered over the years.” Despite extensive work by scientists in the field, he said: “I’m not sure we’re any better at predicting an emerging virus than we’ve ever been. I would point out that we didn’t spot SARS-CoV-2 coming, even though we had SARS-CoV-1 a few years earlier. Nobody spotted the 2009 pandemic from influenza, even though there was a lot of surveillance around at the time.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As avian influenza continues to spread among wild bird populations in the European Union (EU), scientists have described a wide range of factors that could drive the virus to spread efficiently among humans, thereby increasing its pandemic potential.

Although transmission of avian influenza A(H5N1) from infected birds to humans is rare, “new strains carrying potential mutations for mammalian adaptation” could occur, according to a report issued on April 3 by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority. The analysis identified a threat of strains currently circulating outside Europe that could enter the EU and the wider European Economic Area (EEA).

“If avian A(H5N1) influenza viruses acquire the ability to spread efficiently among humans, large-scale transmission could occur due to the lack of immune defenses against H5 viruses in humans,” the report warned.
 

Evolution of Avian Influenza Remains Hard to Predict

However, despite many occurrences of human exposure to avian influenza since 2020, “no symptomatic or productive infection in a human has been identified in the EU/EEA,” the scientists stated. Furthermore, after almost three decades of human exposure to the A(H5N1) virus of the Gs/GD lineage, the virus has not yet acquired the mutations required for airborne transmissibility between humans. However, it remains “difficult to predict the evolutionary direction the virus will take in the future,” the scientists assessed.

“Clearly, humans are being exposed in the current USA cattle outbreak,” Professor James Wood, infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, told this news organization. “But, arguably, what is more significant is how few cases there have been with this virus lineage and its close relatives, despite massive global exposures over the last 3 years. All diagnosed human cases seem to have been singletons, with no evidence of human-to-human transmission.”

Ian Jones, professor of virology at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, sees no evidence of an imminent spillover of avian influenza from birds. But he told this news organization: “The trouble is, the clock resets every minute. Every time the virus has come out of a bird and gone somewhere, the clock is reset. So you can never say that just because it hasn’t happened since whenever, it’s never going to happen.”

 

Preventive Measures Recommended

The European report recommended a range of cautionary measures that included enhanced surveillance, access to rapid diagnostics, and sharing of genetic sequence data. It urged EU authorities to work together, adopting a One Health perspective, to limit the exposure of mammals, including humans, to avian influenza viruses. 

Sarah Pitt, a microbiologist at the University of Brighton, United Kingdom, said the emphasis on authorities taking a One Health approach was sound. “You’re looking at humans, animals, plants, and the environment and how they’re all closely interacted,” she told this news organization. “Putting all those things together is actually going to be good for human health. So they’ve mentioned One Health a lot and I’m sure that’s on purpose because it’s the latest buzzword, and presumably it’s a way of getting governments to take it seriously.” 

Overall, Dr. Pitt believes the document is designed to move zoonotic infectious diseases a bit higher up the agenda. “They should have been higher up the agenda before COVID,” she said.

The report also called for consideration of preventative measures, such as vaccination of poultry flocks. 

Overall, Dr. Jones assesses the European report as “a reworking of what’s been pretty well covered over the years.” Despite extensive work by scientists in the field, he said: “I’m not sure we’re any better at predicting an emerging virus than we’ve ever been. I would point out that we didn’t spot SARS-CoV-2 coming, even though we had SARS-CoV-1 a few years earlier. Nobody spotted the 2009 pandemic from influenza, even though there was a lot of surveillance around at the time.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Benralizumab is now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of asthma in children older than 6 years. 

Marketed as Fasenra, the medication first was approved in 2017 for patients aged 12 years or older. The drug is approved as a maintenance add-on for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. 

AstraZeneca, which markets the drug, announced the approval for younger patients on April 11. 

The expanded indication was supported by a study that showed that the drug functions in the same way with younger children and their adolescent peers. The safety and tolerability were also consistent with the known profile of the medicine, the company said. 

For children who weigh ≥ 35 kg, the recommended dose is 30 mg. For patients aged 6-11 years who weigh < 35 kg, a new 10-mg dose will be available, according to the announcement. 

The drug, a monoclonal antibody that depletes eosinophils by binding to interleukin 5 receptor alpha on eosinophils, is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for the first three doses and then every 8 weeks.

Benralizumab should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms. Hypersensitivity reasons have occurred after administration of the drug. The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Benralizumab is now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of asthma in children older than 6 years. 

Marketed as Fasenra, the medication first was approved in 2017 for patients aged 12 years or older. The drug is approved as a maintenance add-on for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. 

AstraZeneca, which markets the drug, announced the approval for younger patients on April 11. 

The expanded indication was supported by a study that showed that the drug functions in the same way with younger children and their adolescent peers. The safety and tolerability were also consistent with the known profile of the medicine, the company said. 

For children who weigh ≥ 35 kg, the recommended dose is 30 mg. For patients aged 6-11 years who weigh < 35 kg, a new 10-mg dose will be available, according to the announcement. 

The drug, a monoclonal antibody that depletes eosinophils by binding to interleukin 5 receptor alpha on eosinophils, is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for the first three doses and then every 8 weeks.

Benralizumab should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms. Hypersensitivity reasons have occurred after administration of the drug. The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Benralizumab is now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of asthma in children older than 6 years. 

Marketed as Fasenra, the medication first was approved in 2017 for patients aged 12 years or older. The drug is approved as a maintenance add-on for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. 

AstraZeneca, which markets the drug, announced the approval for younger patients on April 11. 

The expanded indication was supported by a study that showed that the drug functions in the same way with younger children and their adolescent peers. The safety and tolerability were also consistent with the known profile of the medicine, the company said. 

For children who weigh ≥ 35 kg, the recommended dose is 30 mg. For patients aged 6-11 years who weigh < 35 kg, a new 10-mg dose will be available, according to the announcement. 

The drug, a monoclonal antibody that depletes eosinophils by binding to interleukin 5 receptor alpha on eosinophils, is administered by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks for the first three doses and then every 8 weeks.

Benralizumab should not be used to treat acute asthma symptoms. Hypersensitivity reasons have occurred after administration of the drug. The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher levels of arm and trunk fat are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality, while higher levels of leg fat are associated with a reduced risk for these conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• People with T2D have a twofold to fourfold higher risk for CVD and mortality, and evidence shows obesity management helps delay complications and premature death, but an elevated body mass index (BMI) may be insufficient to measure obesity.
• In the “obesity paradox,” people with elevated BMI may have a lower CVD risk than people of normal weight.
• Researchers prospectively investigated how regional body fat accumulation was associated with CVD risk in 21,472 people with T2D (mean age, 58.9 years; 60.7% men; BMI about 29-33) from the UK Biobank (2006-2010), followed up for a median of 7.7 years.
• The regional body fat distribution in arms, trunk, and legs was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence of CVD, all-cause mortality, and CVD mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the highest quartile of arm fat percentage (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05) and trunk fat percentage (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52) were at a higher risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile.
• However, participants in the highest quartile of leg fat percentage had a lower risk for CVD than those in the lowest quartile (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.90).
• A nonlinear relationship was observed between higher leg fat percentage and lower CVD risk and between higher trunk fat percentage and higher CVD risk, whereas a linear relationship was noted between higher arm fat percentage and higher CVD risk.
• The patterns of association were similar for both all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. Overall patterns were similar for men and women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the understanding of body fat distribution in patients with T2D, which highlights the importance of considering both the amount and the location of body fat when assessing CVD and mortality risk among patients with T2D,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study led by Zixin Qiu, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

As body fat was measured only once at the beginning of the study, its changing association over time could not be assessed. Moreover, the findings were primarily based on predominantly White UK adults, potentially restricting their generalizability to other population groups. Furthermore, diabetes was diagnosed using self-reported medical history, medication, and hemoglobin A1c levels, implying that some cases may have gone undetected at baseline. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hubei Province Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.