Clinical Endocrinology News

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common form of diabetes, representing more than 90% of all cases worldwide. The prevalence of T2D is increasing globally, mainly because of behavioral and social factors related to obesity, diet, and physical activity. The International Diabetes Federation estimated in its 2021 report that 537 million adults aged between 20 and 79 years have been diagnosed with diabetes worldwide. The organization predicts an increase to 643 million by 2030 and 743 million by 2045.

The main therapeutic goals for patients with T2D include adequate glycemic control and primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular and renal diseases, which represent nearly half of all deaths among adults with T2D. Despite the multiple treatment options available, 16% of adults with T2D have inadequate glycemic control, including hemoglobin A1c levels greater than 9%, even though glycemic control was the focus of the 2017 guidelines of the American College of Physicians.

Therefore, the ACP deemed it necessary to update the previous guidelines, considering new evidence on the efficacy and harms of new pharmacologic treatments in adults with T2D with the goal of reducing the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in these patients.
 

New Drugs

The pharmacologic treatments that the ACP considered while updating its guidelines include glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (that is, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide), a GLP-1 receptor agonist and a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (that is, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (that is, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (that is, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin), and long-acting insulins (that is, insulin glargine and insulin degludec).

Recommendations

The ACP recommends adding an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD progression, and hospitalization resulting from heart failure, according to the document. Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, MACE, and strokes.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are the only newer pharmacological treatments for T2D that have reduced all-cause mortality than placebo or usual care. In indirect comparison, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hospitalization resulting from heart failure, while GLP-1 agonists probably reduce the risk for strokes.

Neither class of drugs causes severe hypoglycemia, but both are associated with various harms, as reported in specific warnings. Both classes of drugs lead to weight loss.

Compared with long-acting insulins, SGLT-2 inhibitors can reduce, and GLP-1 agonists probably reduce, all-cause mortality. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce all-cause mortality.

Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors probably reduce MACE, as well as compared with sulfonylureas.

The ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with inadequately controlled T2D to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence).

Compared with usual therapy, DPP-4 inhibitors do not result in differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for chronic heart failure (CHF), CKD progression, or severe hypoglycemia. Compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors may increase hospitalization caused by CHF and probably increase the risk for MACE and CKD progression. Compared with GLP-1 agonists, they probably increase all-cause mortality and hospitalization caused by CHF and the risk for MACE. Metformin is the most common usual therapy in the studies considered.
 

Considerations for Practice

Metformin (unless contraindicated) and lifestyle modifications represent the first step in managing T2D in most patients, according to the ACP.

The choice of additional therapy requires a risk/benefit assessment and should be personalized on the basis of patient preferences, glycemic control goals, comorbidities, and the risk for hypoglycemia. SGLT-2 inhibitors can be added in patients with T2D and CHF or CKD, according to the ACP. GLP-1 agonists can be added in patients with T2D at increased risk for stroke or for whom total body weight loss is a significant therapeutic goal.

The A1c target should be considered between 7% and 8% in most adults with T2D, and de-escalation of pharmacologic treatments should be considered for A1c levels less than 6.5%. Self-monitoring of blood glucose may not be necessary in patients treated with metformin in combination with an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, according to the ACP.

The document also holds that, in cases of adequate glycemic control with the addition of an SGLT-2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist, existing treatment with sulfonylureas or long-acting insulin should be reduced or stopped due to the increased risk for severe hypoglycemia.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should we now recommend continuous glucose monitoring to all our patients, even those without diabetes? Most of us would instinctively say “no” to this question, but we are seeing opinions from doctors recommending it, and in recent years, scientific literature has focused on the subject. 

Today, anyone can get an arm patch that continuously measures interstitial glucose, which is closely related to blood sugar. The information can be read on a dedicated reader or on a mobile phone by scanning the patch or, with some models, without even doing anything.

There is a consensus for prescribing continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who are treated with at least three insulin injections. Not only is the use of continuous glucose monitoring much more comfortable than self-monitoring with finger sticks, but continuous monitoring also helps reduce glycosylated hemoglobin while decreasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Recently, another indication has begun to be reimbursed in France: Type 2 diabetes under mono-insulin injection when the diabetes is not well controlled.

But alongside these situations, there are two questions that are worth considering.
 

Untreated Type 2 Diabetes 

First, is continuous glucose monitoring desirable for all patients with diabetes, even those not treated with insulin and even when blood sugar levels are well managed? Intuitively, one might think that it can’t hurt and that continuous monitoring of blood sugar can only improve things. We have some evidence supporting this idea, but the level of proof is quite weak. It is not clear that continuous monitoring can improve patients’ awareness of the impact of dietary choices or physical activity on blood sugar. Obviously, one can imagine that continuously monitoring glucose will encourage a shift toward more beneficial behaviors. But honestly, today, we do not have proof that wearing a continuous glucose monitor can improve behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes who are treated with noninsulin antidiabetic medications.

Furthermore, a significant study has shown that while the effectiveness is more evident in patients treated with insulin, strong evidence suggests that continuous glucose monitoring could also reduce glycosylated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. A close examination of the results suggests that the benefits generally are less than those observed in insulin-treated patients with diabetes.

When we look at the scientific literature, two factors seem particularly important to consider if choosing to prescribe a continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The first is the method used, because the results can vary depending on the method. It appears that only self-monitoring that allows the patient to follow glucose in real time is effective, unlike blind monitoring that allows only a retrospective analysis of blood sugar levels. In the latter case, the patient wears the sensor, and after a week, 10 days, or 15 days, the results are analyzed, possibly with a health care provider. It seems that this is not very effective in improving glycosylated hemoglobin and dietary and physical activity behavior.

The second essential factor to consider is the need for an education program for the use of these sensors to be helpful. If sensors are used but nothing else is done, it does not seem logical. Seeing blood sugar levels without being able to understand them and act accordingly seems of little use. Scientific literature seems to confirm this idea. 
 

Patients Without Diabetes

Now there is another question. We have discussed patients with type 2 diabetes without insulin. It’s trendy to talk about the potential benefits of continuous glucose monitors in patients without diabetes. The idea is emerging that these monitors could be used to refine the diagnosis of diabetes or to better predict the onset of diabetes in the subsequent years.

Others claim that continuous glucose monitors are an effective way to induce a change in dietary and physical activity behaviors in patients with prediabetes. One can, for example, tell a patient, “You are at risk of developing diabetes, so by monitoring your glucose, you will change your behavior.” Honestly, the scientific data we have today do not support these ideas, and I sincerely believe that it is not advisable today to recommend, as some would like, the mass use of monitors, whether in patients with overweight or obesity, or in patients with prediabetes. This goes for suggestions for using the monitor for 7-10 days per year, in the form of a session to try to reduce the risk for diabetes by motivating patients to change their behavior. We have no evidence at all that this can work. And in my opinion, with this kind of discourse, we ultimately risk, as usual, encouraging patients who are already “fans” of self-checks and self-monitoring to get health data, even if they do not know how to interpret it. Maybe even the doctor they ask for interpretation will not be trained to interpret the results of these monitors.

Spreading the idea that monitors are useful for preventing diabetes has a side effect: It hinders progress on the essential issue. Today, one of the problems in diabetes and prediabetes is that screening is not done often enough, and 20% of patients with diabetes are still unaware of their diagnosis. The management of early diabetes or prediabetes, in my opinion, is not optimal in routine care today. So, I think that adding the idea that using monitors could be beneficial dilutes the main information.

Having said that, I sometimes offer continuous glucose monitoring to some of my patients on a case-by-case basis. I believe that with proper support and an educational program, it can be beneficial for certain patients.
 

In Practice

In summary, I am totally opposed to the normalization of the use of monitors. I think it is our role as health care professionals to warn the public that even if it is accessible — anyone can buy a reader, a sensor — it is not necessarily beneficial, and it may even distract us from what is essential. But as a specialist, I think that using a monitor within a genuine care plan seems reasonable. Ultimately, it’s just personalized medicine.

Dr. Hansel is an endocrinologist-diabetologist and nutritionist, Department of Diabetology-Endocrinology-Nutrition, Hôpital Bichat, and a university lecturer and hospital practitioner, Université Paris-Diderot, France. He discloses ties with Iriade, Sanofi-Aventis, and Amgen.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Mulling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Mulling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Mulling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

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

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

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

BOSTON — Men who stop using performance-enhancing anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) experience significant depression, anxiety, and diminished sexual function within the first year after quitting, new research found.

The data suggest that monitoring these men and, pending clinical trial evidence, intervening to minimize these effects could help prevent recidivism, Bonnie Grant, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.

“Nothing has actually been studied in proper randomized controlled trials … but I think there’s going to be a role for medicine alongside psychological treatment … Clinicians often see men who have stopped [taking steroids] who report feeling low in mood … a lot of these men will just restart taking them again,” she said.

Anabolic steroids taken exogenously suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal system, thereby suppressing endogenous testosterone secretion. While AAS do enhance muscle-building, they can also lead to enlarged hearts, hypertension, and infertility. Most of these are reversible if the man stops taking the AAS.

However, after stopping, the testosterone levels can take up to a year to return to normal. During that time, the man can experience symptoms including low libido, erectile dysfunction, low mood, and fatigue. This leads to a dependence syndrome in about 30%. About 65% of men who stop taking anabolic steroids will restart taking them within the first year, Dr. Grant said in presenting her findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “One question is, if you intervene with an antidepressant, will that prevent the people from relapsing and going back to using? I think that’s certainly something that would need to be explored and tested.”

Dr. Hayes also noted that fertility problems may lead some men to decide to stop using the steroids. “That can be a strong motivator. If you have a motivated patient, then you add in an antidepressant or anxiolytic or link the patients with mental health services. I think that would definitely be beneficial and definitely something we need to address and see if it is worthwhile doing.”

Dr. Grant presented data from her group’s cross-sectional, observational study. Of a total 245 men, 116 were current AAS users, 84 were previous AAS users who had quit within the past year, and 45 had never used them. All completed extensive questionnaires about their substance use, mood, sexual function, and anxiety. They had morning blood tests, and urine samples were taken for toxicology testing.

The three groups didn’t differ by age (most were in their mid-30s) or ethnicity (most were White). However, the proportion who self-reported psychiatric diagnoses (mostly depression or anxiety) was significantly higher among both the current (29%) and past (25%) AAS users than among the never users (6.6%), with P = .0094.

Dr. Hayes commented, “One of the drawbacks of this study was they didn’t have baseline data. But it would make sense, I think, that the incidence of depression and anxiety was higher in the people who went on to use anabolic steroids.”

Use of other illicit drugs — mostly cocaine and cannabis — was also higher among the past (40.5%) and current (47.4%) AAS users than among the nonusers (17.7%), P = .0025.

Not surprisingly, total testosterone levels were much higher in current AAS users (62.8 nmol/L) than in past users (20.1 nmol/L) and nonusers (20.0 nmol/L), P < .001. Levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin were significantly lower in the current AAS users than in the other two groups, while estradiol levels were significantly higher (all P < .001).

There were no differences in total testosterone between the never users and previous users. However, about 25% of the men who stopped continued to have lower-than-normal testosterone levels, Dr. Grant noted.

Depression scores, as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II, were highest in men who stopped using AAS, and lowest in the never users. Moderate to severe depression was present in 20% of the men who stopped using AAS, 6% of current users, and none of the nonusers.

In multivariable analysis, having a prior psychiatric diagnosis increased the risk for current depression on the Beck inventory by twofold in the current AAS users (P = .001) and threefold in the past users (P < .001). “Interestingly, testosterone levels were not associated with depression,” she noted.

Sexual function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) 15, was significantly worse among those who had stopped using AAS compared with current users and nonusers (P = .023). At the same time, total testosterone levels were only weakly correlated with IIEF scores.

In multivariate analysis, higher LH levels were associated with worse sexual function (P = .01).

Anxiety, as measured by the General Anxiety Disorder-7 assessment, was higher in previous users than in never users. Overall, 12% of the previous users had moderate or severe anxiety vs just 2% of nonusers.

The next step in the research will be to examine the urine toxicology for AAS and other illicit substances, Dr. Grant said.

“We’re hoping this information will allow for future studies to be developed to design treatments, which will help millions of men worldwide to stop and stay off anabolic steroids,” she concluded.

Dr. Grant and Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Men who stop using performance-enhancing anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) experience significant depression, anxiety, and diminished sexual function within the first year after quitting, new research found.

The data suggest that monitoring these men and, pending clinical trial evidence, intervening to minimize these effects could help prevent recidivism, Bonnie Grant, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.

“Nothing has actually been studied in proper randomized controlled trials … but I think there’s going to be a role for medicine alongside psychological treatment … Clinicians often see men who have stopped [taking steroids] who report feeling low in mood … a lot of these men will just restart taking them again,” she said.

Anabolic steroids taken exogenously suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal system, thereby suppressing endogenous testosterone secretion. While AAS do enhance muscle-building, they can also lead to enlarged hearts, hypertension, and infertility. Most of these are reversible if the man stops taking the AAS.

However, after stopping, the testosterone levels can take up to a year to return to normal. During that time, the man can experience symptoms including low libido, erectile dysfunction, low mood, and fatigue. This leads to a dependence syndrome in about 30%. About 65% of men who stop taking anabolic steroids will restart taking them within the first year, Dr. Grant said in presenting her findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “One question is, if you intervene with an antidepressant, will that prevent the people from relapsing and going back to using? I think that’s certainly something that would need to be explored and tested.”

Dr. Hayes also noted that fertility problems may lead some men to decide to stop using the steroids. “That can be a strong motivator. If you have a motivated patient, then you add in an antidepressant or anxiolytic or link the patients with mental health services. I think that would definitely be beneficial and definitely something we need to address and see if it is worthwhile doing.”

Dr. Grant presented data from her group’s cross-sectional, observational study. Of a total 245 men, 116 were current AAS users, 84 were previous AAS users who had quit within the past year, and 45 had never used them. All completed extensive questionnaires about their substance use, mood, sexual function, and anxiety. They had morning blood tests, and urine samples were taken for toxicology testing.

The three groups didn’t differ by age (most were in their mid-30s) or ethnicity (most were White). However, the proportion who self-reported psychiatric diagnoses (mostly depression or anxiety) was significantly higher among both the current (29%) and past (25%) AAS users than among the never users (6.6%), with P = .0094.

Dr. Hayes commented, “One of the drawbacks of this study was they didn’t have baseline data. But it would make sense, I think, that the incidence of depression and anxiety was higher in the people who went on to use anabolic steroids.”

Use of other illicit drugs — mostly cocaine and cannabis — was also higher among the past (40.5%) and current (47.4%) AAS users than among the nonusers (17.7%), P = .0025.

Not surprisingly, total testosterone levels were much higher in current AAS users (62.8 nmol/L) than in past users (20.1 nmol/L) and nonusers (20.0 nmol/L), P < .001. Levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin were significantly lower in the current AAS users than in the other two groups, while estradiol levels were significantly higher (all P < .001).

There were no differences in total testosterone between the never users and previous users. However, about 25% of the men who stopped continued to have lower-than-normal testosterone levels, Dr. Grant noted.

Depression scores, as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II, were highest in men who stopped using AAS, and lowest in the never users. Moderate to severe depression was present in 20% of the men who stopped using AAS, 6% of current users, and none of the nonusers.

In multivariable analysis, having a prior psychiatric diagnosis increased the risk for current depression on the Beck inventory by twofold in the current AAS users (P = .001) and threefold in the past users (P < .001). “Interestingly, testosterone levels were not associated with depression,” she noted.

Sexual function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) 15, was significantly worse among those who had stopped using AAS compared with current users and nonusers (P = .023). At the same time, total testosterone levels were only weakly correlated with IIEF scores.

In multivariate analysis, higher LH levels were associated with worse sexual function (P = .01).

Anxiety, as measured by the General Anxiety Disorder-7 assessment, was higher in previous users than in never users. Overall, 12% of the previous users had moderate or severe anxiety vs just 2% of nonusers.

The next step in the research will be to examine the urine toxicology for AAS and other illicit substances, Dr. Grant said.

“We’re hoping this information will allow for future studies to be developed to design treatments, which will help millions of men worldwide to stop and stay off anabolic steroids,” she concluded.

Dr. Grant and Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

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

BOSTON — Men who stop using performance-enhancing anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) experience significant depression, anxiety, and diminished sexual function within the first year after quitting, new research found.

The data suggest that monitoring these men and, pending clinical trial evidence, intervening to minimize these effects could help prevent recidivism, Bonnie Grant, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization.

“Nothing has actually been studied in proper randomized controlled trials … but I think there’s going to be a role for medicine alongside psychological treatment … Clinicians often see men who have stopped [taking steroids] who report feeling low in mood … a lot of these men will just restart taking them again,” she said.

Anabolic steroids taken exogenously suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal system, thereby suppressing endogenous testosterone secretion. While AAS do enhance muscle-building, they can also lead to enlarged hearts, hypertension, and infertility. Most of these are reversible if the man stops taking the AAS.

However, after stopping, the testosterone levels can take up to a year to return to normal. During that time, the man can experience symptoms including low libido, erectile dysfunction, low mood, and fatigue. This leads to a dependence syndrome in about 30%. About 65% of men who stop taking anabolic steroids will restart taking them within the first year, Dr. Grant said in presenting her findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “One question is, if you intervene with an antidepressant, will that prevent the people from relapsing and going back to using? I think that’s certainly something that would need to be explored and tested.”

Dr. Hayes also noted that fertility problems may lead some men to decide to stop using the steroids. “That can be a strong motivator. If you have a motivated patient, then you add in an antidepressant or anxiolytic or link the patients with mental health services. I think that would definitely be beneficial and definitely something we need to address and see if it is worthwhile doing.”

Dr. Grant presented data from her group’s cross-sectional, observational study. Of a total 245 men, 116 were current AAS users, 84 were previous AAS users who had quit within the past year, and 45 had never used them. All completed extensive questionnaires about their substance use, mood, sexual function, and anxiety. They had morning blood tests, and urine samples were taken for toxicology testing.

The three groups didn’t differ by age (most were in their mid-30s) or ethnicity (most were White). However, the proportion who self-reported psychiatric diagnoses (mostly depression or anxiety) was significantly higher among both the current (29%) and past (25%) AAS users than among the never users (6.6%), with P = .0094.

Dr. Hayes commented, “One of the drawbacks of this study was they didn’t have baseline data. But it would make sense, I think, that the incidence of depression and anxiety was higher in the people who went on to use anabolic steroids.”

Use of other illicit drugs — mostly cocaine and cannabis — was also higher among the past (40.5%) and current (47.4%) AAS users than among the nonusers (17.7%), P = .0025.

Not surprisingly, total testosterone levels were much higher in current AAS users (62.8 nmol/L) than in past users (20.1 nmol/L) and nonusers (20.0 nmol/L), P < .001. Levels of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin were significantly lower in the current AAS users than in the other two groups, while estradiol levels were significantly higher (all P < .001).

There were no differences in total testosterone between the never users and previous users. However, about 25% of the men who stopped continued to have lower-than-normal testosterone levels, Dr. Grant noted.

Depression scores, as assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II, were highest in men who stopped using AAS, and lowest in the never users. Moderate to severe depression was present in 20% of the men who stopped using AAS, 6% of current users, and none of the nonusers.

In multivariable analysis, having a prior psychiatric diagnosis increased the risk for current depression on the Beck inventory by twofold in the current AAS users (P = .001) and threefold in the past users (P < .001). “Interestingly, testosterone levels were not associated with depression,” she noted.

Sexual function, as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) 15, was significantly worse among those who had stopped using AAS compared with current users and nonusers (P = .023). At the same time, total testosterone levels were only weakly correlated with IIEF scores.

In multivariate analysis, higher LH levels were associated with worse sexual function (P = .01).

Anxiety, as measured by the General Anxiety Disorder-7 assessment, was higher in previous users than in never users. Overall, 12% of the previous users had moderate or severe anxiety vs just 2% of nonusers.

The next step in the research will be to examine the urine toxicology for AAS and other illicit substances, Dr. Grant said.

“We’re hoping this information will allow for future studies to be developed to design treatments, which will help millions of men worldwide to stop and stay off anabolic steroids,” she concluded.

Dr. Grant and Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

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

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Two decades after the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) changed the way clinicians thought about hormone therapy and cancer, new findings suggest this national health study is "the gift that keeps on giving."

Follow-up from two of the WHI’s randomized trials have found that estrogen alone in women with prior hysterectomy significantly increased ovarian cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women. Estrogen and progesterone together, meanwhile, did not increase ovarian cancer risk, and significantly reduced the risk of endometrial cancer. Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of The Lundquist Institute in Torrance, California, presented these results from the latest WHI findings, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues conducted an analysis from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which between 1993 and 1998 enrolled nearly 28,000 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years without prior cancer from 40 centers across the United States. (The full WHI effort involved a total cohort of 161,000 patients, and included an observational study and two other non-drug trials.)

In one of the hormone therapy trials, 17,000 women with a uterus at baseline were randomized to combined equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, or placebo. In the other trial, about 11,000 women with prior hysterectomy were randomized to daily estrogen alone or placebo. Both trials were stopped early: the estrogen-only trial due to an increased stroke risk, and the combined therapy trial due to findings of increased breast cancer and cardiovascular risk.

Mean exposure to hormone therapy was 5.6 years for the combined therapy trial and 7.2 years for estrogen alone trial.
 

Ovarian Cancer Incidence Doubles with Estrogen

At 20 years’ follow up, with mortality information available for nearly the full cohort, Dr. Chlebowski and his colleagues could determine that ovarian cancer incidence doubled among women who had taken estrogen alone (hazard ratio = 2.04; 95% CI 1.14-3.65; P = .01), a difference that reached statistical significance at 12 years’ follow up. Ovarian cancer mortality was also significantly increased (HR = 2.79 95% CI 1.30-5.99, P = .006). Absolute numbers were small, however, with 35 cases of ovarian cancer compared with 17 in the placebo group.

Combined therapy recipients saw no increased risk for ovarian cancer and significantly lower endometrial cancer incidence (106 cases vs. 140 HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .01).

Conjugated equine estrogen, Dr. Chlebowski said during his presentation at the meeting, “was introduced in US clinical practice in 1943 and used for over half a century, yet the question about hormone therapy’s influence on endometrial and ovarian cancer remains unsettled. Endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer are the fourth and fifth leading causes of cancer deaths in women ... and there’s some discordant findings from observational studies.”

Care of Ovarian Cancer Survivors Should Change

The new findings should prompt practice and guideline changes regarding the use of estrogen alone in ovarian cancer survivors, Dr. Chlebowski said.

In an interview, oncologist Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, of Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care in Paramus, New Jersey, said that apart from this subgroup of ovarian cancer survivors, the findings would not likely have much impact on how clinicians and patients approach hormone replacement therapy today.

“Twenty years ago the Women’s Health Initiative showed that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk, and everyone stopped taking HRT. And now people pushing back on it and saying wait a second – it was the estrogen plus progesterone that increased breast cancer, not estrogen alone. And now we’ve got these newer [estrogen] formulations.

“Yes, there’s a little bit of an increased risk [for ovarian cancer]. Patients should be aware. They should know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. But if they have indications and have been recommended HRT, this is not something that we would advise them against because of this very slightly increased risk,” Dr. Teplinsky said.

Oncologist Allison Kurian, MD of Stanford University in Stanford, California, who specializes in breast cancer, also noted that the duration of hormone treatment, treatment timing relative to age of menopause onset, and commonly used estrogen preparations had indeed changed since the time the WHI trials were conducted, making it harder to generalize the findings to current practice. Nonetheless, she argued, they still have real significance.

“WHI is an incredibly complex but also incredibly valuable resource,” said Dr. Kurian, who has conducted studies using WHI data. “The first big results came out in 2002, and we’re still learning from it. These are randomized trials, which offer the strongest form of scientific evidence that exists. So whenever we see results from this study, we have to take note of them,” she said.

Because the WHI trials had shown combined therapy, not estrogen alone, to be associated with breast cancer risk, clinicians have felt reassured over the years about using estrogen alone.

“You can’t give it to a person unless they have their uterus removed, because we know it will cause uterine cancer if the uterus is in place. But if the uterus is removed, the feeling was that you can give estrogen alone. I think the new piece that is going to get everyone’s attention is this signal for ovarian cancer.”

Something else the new findings show, Dr. Kurian said, is that WHI is “the gift that keeps on giving,” even after decades. “Some of the participants had a relatively short-term exposure to HRT. They took a medication for just a little while. But you didn’t see the effects until you followed people 12 years. So we’re now going to be a little more worried about ovarian cancer in this setting than we used to be. And that’s going to be something we’re all going to keep an eye on and think twice about in terms of talking to patients.”

These results help demonstrate what happens when a society invests in science on a national scale, Dr. Kurian said. “Here we have a really long-term, incredibly informative study that keeps generating knowledge to help women.”

When the WHI began, it “really was the first time that people decided it was important to systematically study women at midlife. It was a remarkable thing then that society got mobilized to do this, and we’re still seeing the benefits.”

Dr. Chlebowski disclosed receiving consulting or advisory fees from Pfizer. Dr. Teplinsky and Dr. Kurian disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.