Cardiology News

On a recent Sunday morning in Los Angeles, 10 members of Gamblers Anonymous gathered in a park for their regular meeting. After, they shared advice for how physicians can best help patients with problem gambling.

“If a patient talks about financial distress, spouse issues, physical issues, or has blood pressure issues, suspect gambling,” one woman said. Another said, if a physician asks about gambling and the patient says, “Just a little,” chances are that person is an active gambler.

The bottom line: None of the people — who spoke for themselves and not on behalf of Gamblers Anonymous — said they had been asked by their doctors about gambling issues. All said they would welcome such questions.

Gambling is on the rise, and gambling disorder is now recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The condition is viewed as similar to substance-related disorders in its clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology, and treatment.

Primary care physicians (PCPs), more than any of their colleagues, are likely to encounter a patient with an undetected gambling disorder, according to experts, as it often intertwines with physical and mental health concerns. Those conditions bring the patient to their clinicians, although the patients may not link those issues with their gambling. The physicians may not either.

Few PCPs broach the topic. “I would say the majority of physicians do not screen for it,” said Brian K. Unwin, MD, FAAFP, AGSF, a family medicine physician and geriatrician at the Carilion Center for Healthy Aging and professor at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.

The clinician who does take steps to screen for the problem is “exceptionally rare,” said Timothy W. Fong, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and co-director of the UCLA Gambling Studies Program. Launched in 2005, the program conducts research, provides prevention and treatment services, and offers training to healthcare providers and the community.

A Las Vegas physician said colleagues in her area are likewise largely unaware, despite the strong connection with the city and gaming. “I do not think most primary care physicians are routinely asking about gambling,” said Maureen Strohm, MD, president of the Nevada Society of Addiction Medicine. Strohm also directs the addiction medicine fellowship at HCA Sunrise Health GME Consortium at Southern Hills Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas and cares for patients with substance abuse issues.

But physicians should look for gambling issues, she said, especially in those with known substance abuse disorders. “We encourage incorporation of gambling as another question in comprehensive assessment of patients, since it’s rarely an isolated issue in our treatment settings,” Strohm said.

 

Gritty Reputation Goes Glam, With No Shortage of Opportunities

Why a rise in gambling? Its reputation, for one thing. “It used to be, if you enjoyed gambling, you were viewed as, what — a person of vice, a person of sin,” Fong said. “That’s completely changed. Engaging in gambling is more accepted — and not just accepted but normalized and even glamorized. In some circles, if you don’t gamble, it’s like, ‘What is wrong with you?’ ”

Opportunities to gamble have increased, including a boom in mobile sports betting. Sports betting online, in person, or both now is legal in 39 states and the District of Columbia. The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as that for other gamblers, the National Council on Problem Gambling found. As Fong puts it: “The casino comes to you.”

With the rise in opportunities to bet has come an increase in gambling-related disorders. Statistics vary greatly, but Unwin cites a meta-analysis published in 2023 that found moderate-risk or at-risk gambling affects 2.4% of the adult population and pathologic or problem gambling affects 1.29%. He first noticed problem gambling in young soldiers when he was a military doctor and published on it in 2000.

However, the percentage of people with gambling issues seeking care in PCPs’ offices is much higher, probably from 5% to 16%, research has found. “When you survey people who go to the primary care physicians, the number [with a gambling issue] could be as high as 10%-15% of those going for any medical reason,” Fong said. “Many times, their stories are hidden.”

In November, The Lancet Public Health Commission said it views problem gambling as an expanding public health threat.

 

Seeing the Red Flags

“In a perfect world, it would be great to ask all patients” about gambling issues, Unwin said. A more realistic approach, given clinical workloads, is to be alert to the possibility, especially in patients with depression or substance abuse, which often accompany gambling issues.

Learn to look at patterns, Unwin said. “If a patient has had impulsivity issues, is a young male, has had depression and alcohol issues, let’s look and see what else is going on.” 

Other red flags include anyone with an active mental health problem or with a family history of known gambling problems, Fong said.

Some personality traits are linked with a higher likelihood of gambling issues, including highly impulsive behavior and risk-taking behavior. Many problem gamblers are “not very good with loss aversion. They lose a bunch and shrug it off and go back the next day,” Fong noted.

Often, however, the clues are not obvious. Unwin remembers caring for an older couple, and the wife set up an appointment with him — not to talk about her health but to discuss his gambling. “My husband has spent us into debt,” she said. Unwin recalled being completely surprised.

The situation illustrates the flaw in the stereotypical profile of a problem. “In our mind’s eye, it’s often an older White male who talks loudly, is perhaps counterculture,” Fong said. But he often sees young and older people from all cultures and all economic levels struggling with gambling: “Like other forms of addiction, it cuts across all demographics.”

 

Inside a Gambler’s Brain

Many physicians struggle to understand the attraction of gambling, Fong said. They ask: “How can you be addicted to a behavior? Why can’t you just stop?” He tells them: “If people could do that, they would not have a biological psychiatric disorder,” which is what gambling disorder is.

The urge to gamble can be so strong, “You can’t think of anything else,” Fong said. “It screws up your day.” Gamblers say they’re after the “action,” the euphoric state similar to the highs produced from some drugs. Compared with recreational gamblers, problem gamblers rely more on long-term learning than short-term reward?, and so are less able to learn from their losses in the immediate past, research by Fong and others found.

 

Seeking Treatment

One in five problem gamblers seeks help, and 1 in 25 with a moderate-risk habit do so, Unwin said, citing a 2022 study.

To identify concerning behaviors, physicians can turn to two brief screeners that take just minutes:

• The Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen includes just three questions; a yes to any one suggests a gambling problem.
• The Lie-Bet two-question screener can help determine if a person needs a referral for a gambling problem.

“People tend to be pretty honest with their doctor when asked about gambling,” Fong said. “Even the act of asking is enough to get people to start thinking.”

To meet the DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder, patients must exhibit at least four or more concerning behaviors in the previous 12 months.

For available treatments, “our toolbox is growing,” Fong said. “Psychotherapy probably works best,” including cognitive-behavioral therapy and relapse prevention approaches. “Twelve-step programs work very well,” Fong added.

Medications used for alcohol use disorder, such as naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, are prescribed for gambling disorder, with some success, he said. Often, developing a positive therapeutic relationship with a person who does not judge them is enough to change behavior, Fong said.

To provide treatment and other services, the UCLA program collaborates with the state Office of Problem Gambling. “We know that at least 70% of our patients who stay in treatment and participate in treatment make really meaningful gains and improvement in some part of their lives,” Fong said. “They do gamble less; they do gamble with less money.

 

Goal: Cold Turkey or Harm Reduction?

Fong tells gamblers seeking help: “My goal is to reduce the harm related to your gambling.” In working with patients, he identifies forms that are most problematic and those less likely to cause problems. For some, sports betting may be an issue, but going to Las Vegas a few times a year to play the slots may not generate harm for them. Many patients still gamble, he said, but have a better quality of life if they focus on health and wellness.

“Abstinence is just one domain,” Fong said. The others — home, health, self-care, a sense of purpose, community — are important, too. He helps patients to focus on those.”

Of all the addictions, gambling is one physicians are largely unaware of, Fong said. “And the patients have something that can be treated.”

Unwin, Strohm, and Fong reported no relevant financial disclosures. Physicians can attend open meetings of Gamblers Anonymous to find out more. Members of the group are available to speak to clinicians.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On a recent Sunday morning in Los Angeles, 10 members of Gamblers Anonymous gathered in a park for their regular meeting. After, they shared advice for how physicians can best help patients with problem gambling.

“If a patient talks about financial distress, spouse issues, physical issues, or has blood pressure issues, suspect gambling,” one woman said. Another said, if a physician asks about gambling and the patient says, “Just a little,” chances are that person is an active gambler.

The bottom line: None of the people — who spoke for themselves and not on behalf of Gamblers Anonymous — said they had been asked by their doctors about gambling issues. All said they would welcome such questions.

Gambling is on the rise, and gambling disorder is now recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The condition is viewed as similar to substance-related disorders in its clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology, and treatment.

Primary care physicians (PCPs), more than any of their colleagues, are likely to encounter a patient with an undetected gambling disorder, according to experts, as it often intertwines with physical and mental health concerns. Those conditions bring the patient to their clinicians, although the patients may not link those issues with their gambling. The physicians may not either.

Few PCPs broach the topic. “I would say the majority of physicians do not screen for it,” said Brian K. Unwin, MD, FAAFP, AGSF, a family medicine physician and geriatrician at the Carilion Center for Healthy Aging and professor at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.

The clinician who does take steps to screen for the problem is “exceptionally rare,” said Timothy W. Fong, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and co-director of the UCLA Gambling Studies Program. Launched in 2005, the program conducts research, provides prevention and treatment services, and offers training to healthcare providers and the community.

A Las Vegas physician said colleagues in her area are likewise largely unaware, despite the strong connection with the city and gaming. “I do not think most primary care physicians are routinely asking about gambling,” said Maureen Strohm, MD, president of the Nevada Society of Addiction Medicine. Strohm also directs the addiction medicine fellowship at HCA Sunrise Health GME Consortium at Southern Hills Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas and cares for patients with substance abuse issues.

But physicians should look for gambling issues, she said, especially in those with known substance abuse disorders. “We encourage incorporation of gambling as another question in comprehensive assessment of patients, since it’s rarely an isolated issue in our treatment settings,” Strohm said.

 

Gritty Reputation Goes Glam, With No Shortage of Opportunities

Why a rise in gambling? Its reputation, for one thing. “It used to be, if you enjoyed gambling, you were viewed as, what — a person of vice, a person of sin,” Fong said. “That’s completely changed. Engaging in gambling is more accepted — and not just accepted but normalized and even glamorized. In some circles, if you don’t gamble, it’s like, ‘What is wrong with you?’ ”

Opportunities to gamble have increased, including a boom in mobile sports betting. Sports betting online, in person, or both now is legal in 39 states and the District of Columbia. The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as that for other gamblers, the National Council on Problem Gambling found. As Fong puts it: “The casino comes to you.”

With the rise in opportunities to bet has come an increase in gambling-related disorders. Statistics vary greatly, but Unwin cites a meta-analysis published in 2023 that found moderate-risk or at-risk gambling affects 2.4% of the adult population and pathologic or problem gambling affects 1.29%. He first noticed problem gambling in young soldiers when he was a military doctor and published on it in 2000.

However, the percentage of people with gambling issues seeking care in PCPs’ offices is much higher, probably from 5% to 16%, research has found. “When you survey people who go to the primary care physicians, the number [with a gambling issue] could be as high as 10%-15% of those going for any medical reason,” Fong said. “Many times, their stories are hidden.”

In November, The Lancet Public Health Commission said it views problem gambling as an expanding public health threat.

 

Seeing the Red Flags

“In a perfect world, it would be great to ask all patients” about gambling issues, Unwin said. A more realistic approach, given clinical workloads, is to be alert to the possibility, especially in patients with depression or substance abuse, which often accompany gambling issues.

Learn to look at patterns, Unwin said. “If a patient has had impulsivity issues, is a young male, has had depression and alcohol issues, let’s look and see what else is going on.” 

Other red flags include anyone with an active mental health problem or with a family history of known gambling problems, Fong said.

Some personality traits are linked with a higher likelihood of gambling issues, including highly impulsive behavior and risk-taking behavior. Many problem gamblers are “not very good with loss aversion. They lose a bunch and shrug it off and go back the next day,” Fong noted.

Often, however, the clues are not obvious. Unwin remembers caring for an older couple, and the wife set up an appointment with him — not to talk about her health but to discuss his gambling. “My husband has spent us into debt,” she said. Unwin recalled being completely surprised.

The situation illustrates the flaw in the stereotypical profile of a problem. “In our mind’s eye, it’s often an older White male who talks loudly, is perhaps counterculture,” Fong said. But he often sees young and older people from all cultures and all economic levels struggling with gambling: “Like other forms of addiction, it cuts across all demographics.”

 

Inside a Gambler’s Brain

Many physicians struggle to understand the attraction of gambling, Fong said. They ask: “How can you be addicted to a behavior? Why can’t you just stop?” He tells them: “If people could do that, they would not have a biological psychiatric disorder,” which is what gambling disorder is.

The urge to gamble can be so strong, “You can’t think of anything else,” Fong said. “It screws up your day.” Gamblers say they’re after the “action,” the euphoric state similar to the highs produced from some drugs. Compared with recreational gamblers, problem gamblers rely more on long-term learning than short-term reward?, and so are less able to learn from their losses in the immediate past, research by Fong and others found.

 

Seeking Treatment

One in five problem gamblers seeks help, and 1 in 25 with a moderate-risk habit do so, Unwin said, citing a 2022 study.

To identify concerning behaviors, physicians can turn to two brief screeners that take just minutes:

• The Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen includes just three questions; a yes to any one suggests a gambling problem.
• The Lie-Bet two-question screener can help determine if a person needs a referral for a gambling problem.

“People tend to be pretty honest with their doctor when asked about gambling,” Fong said. “Even the act of asking is enough to get people to start thinking.”

To meet the DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder, patients must exhibit at least four or more concerning behaviors in the previous 12 months.

For available treatments, “our toolbox is growing,” Fong said. “Psychotherapy probably works best,” including cognitive-behavioral therapy and relapse prevention approaches. “Twelve-step programs work very well,” Fong added.

Medications used for alcohol use disorder, such as naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, are prescribed for gambling disorder, with some success, he said. Often, developing a positive therapeutic relationship with a person who does not judge them is enough to change behavior, Fong said.

To provide treatment and other services, the UCLA program collaborates with the state Office of Problem Gambling. “We know that at least 70% of our patients who stay in treatment and participate in treatment make really meaningful gains and improvement in some part of their lives,” Fong said. “They do gamble less; they do gamble with less money.

 

Goal: Cold Turkey or Harm Reduction?

Fong tells gamblers seeking help: “My goal is to reduce the harm related to your gambling.” In working with patients, he identifies forms that are most problematic and those less likely to cause problems. For some, sports betting may be an issue, but going to Las Vegas a few times a year to play the slots may not generate harm for them. Many patients still gamble, he said, but have a better quality of life if they focus on health and wellness.

“Abstinence is just one domain,” Fong said. The others — home, health, self-care, a sense of purpose, community — are important, too. He helps patients to focus on those.”

Of all the addictions, gambling is one physicians are largely unaware of, Fong said. “And the patients have something that can be treated.”

Unwin, Strohm, and Fong reported no relevant financial disclosures. Physicians can attend open meetings of Gamblers Anonymous to find out more. Members of the group are available to speak to clinicians.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On a recent Sunday morning in Los Angeles, 10 members of Gamblers Anonymous gathered in a park for their regular meeting. After, they shared advice for how physicians can best help patients with problem gambling.

“If a patient talks about financial distress, spouse issues, physical issues, or has blood pressure issues, suspect gambling,” one woman said. Another said, if a physician asks about gambling and the patient says, “Just a little,” chances are that person is an active gambler.

The bottom line: None of the people — who spoke for themselves and not on behalf of Gamblers Anonymous — said they had been asked by their doctors about gambling issues. All said they would welcome such questions.

Gambling is on the rise, and gambling disorder is now recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The condition is viewed as similar to substance-related disorders in its clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology, and treatment.

Primary care physicians (PCPs), more than any of their colleagues, are likely to encounter a patient with an undetected gambling disorder, according to experts, as it often intertwines with physical and mental health concerns. Those conditions bring the patient to their clinicians, although the patients may not link those issues with their gambling. The physicians may not either.

Few PCPs broach the topic. “I would say the majority of physicians do not screen for it,” said Brian K. Unwin, MD, FAAFP, AGSF, a family medicine physician and geriatrician at the Carilion Center for Healthy Aging and professor at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.

The clinician who does take steps to screen for the problem is “exceptionally rare,” said Timothy W. Fong, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and co-director of the UCLA Gambling Studies Program. Launched in 2005, the program conducts research, provides prevention and treatment services, and offers training to healthcare providers and the community.

A Las Vegas physician said colleagues in her area are likewise largely unaware, despite the strong connection with the city and gaming. “I do not think most primary care physicians are routinely asking about gambling,” said Maureen Strohm, MD, president of the Nevada Society of Addiction Medicine. Strohm also directs the addiction medicine fellowship at HCA Sunrise Health GME Consortium at Southern Hills Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas and cares for patients with substance abuse issues.

But physicians should look for gambling issues, she said, especially in those with known substance abuse disorders. “We encourage incorporation of gambling as another question in comprehensive assessment of patients, since it’s rarely an isolated issue in our treatment settings,” Strohm said.

 

Gritty Reputation Goes Glam, With No Shortage of Opportunities

Why a rise in gambling? Its reputation, for one thing. “It used to be, if you enjoyed gambling, you were viewed as, what — a person of vice, a person of sin,” Fong said. “That’s completely changed. Engaging in gambling is more accepted — and not just accepted but normalized and even glamorized. In some circles, if you don’t gamble, it’s like, ‘What is wrong with you?’ ”

Opportunities to gamble have increased, including a boom in mobile sports betting. Sports betting online, in person, or both now is legal in 39 states and the District of Columbia. The rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as that for other gamblers, the National Council on Problem Gambling found. As Fong puts it: “The casino comes to you.”

With the rise in opportunities to bet has come an increase in gambling-related disorders. Statistics vary greatly, but Unwin cites a meta-analysis published in 2023 that found moderate-risk or at-risk gambling affects 2.4% of the adult population and pathologic or problem gambling affects 1.29%. He first noticed problem gambling in young soldiers when he was a military doctor and published on it in 2000.

However, the percentage of people with gambling issues seeking care in PCPs’ offices is much higher, probably from 5% to 16%, research has found. “When you survey people who go to the primary care physicians, the number [with a gambling issue] could be as high as 10%-15% of those going for any medical reason,” Fong said. “Many times, their stories are hidden.”

In November, The Lancet Public Health Commission said it views problem gambling as an expanding public health threat.

 

Seeing the Red Flags

“In a perfect world, it would be great to ask all patients” about gambling issues, Unwin said. A more realistic approach, given clinical workloads, is to be alert to the possibility, especially in patients with depression or substance abuse, which often accompany gambling issues.

Learn to look at patterns, Unwin said. “If a patient has had impulsivity issues, is a young male, has had depression and alcohol issues, let’s look and see what else is going on.” 

Other red flags include anyone with an active mental health problem or with a family history of known gambling problems, Fong said.

Some personality traits are linked with a higher likelihood of gambling issues, including highly impulsive behavior and risk-taking behavior. Many problem gamblers are “not very good with loss aversion. They lose a bunch and shrug it off and go back the next day,” Fong noted.

Often, however, the clues are not obvious. Unwin remembers caring for an older couple, and the wife set up an appointment with him — not to talk about her health but to discuss his gambling. “My husband has spent us into debt,” she said. Unwin recalled being completely surprised.

The situation illustrates the flaw in the stereotypical profile of a problem. “In our mind’s eye, it’s often an older White male who talks loudly, is perhaps counterculture,” Fong said. But he often sees young and older people from all cultures and all economic levels struggling with gambling: “Like other forms of addiction, it cuts across all demographics.”

 

Inside a Gambler’s Brain

Many physicians struggle to understand the attraction of gambling, Fong said. They ask: “How can you be addicted to a behavior? Why can’t you just stop?” He tells them: “If people could do that, they would not have a biological psychiatric disorder,” which is what gambling disorder is.

The urge to gamble can be so strong, “You can’t think of anything else,” Fong said. “It screws up your day.” Gamblers say they’re after the “action,” the euphoric state similar to the highs produced from some drugs. Compared with recreational gamblers, problem gamblers rely more on long-term learning than short-term reward?, and so are less able to learn from their losses in the immediate past, research by Fong and others found.

 

Seeking Treatment

One in five problem gamblers seeks help, and 1 in 25 with a moderate-risk habit do so, Unwin said, citing a 2022 study.

To identify concerning behaviors, physicians can turn to two brief screeners that take just minutes:

• The Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen includes just three questions; a yes to any one suggests a gambling problem.
• The Lie-Bet two-question screener can help determine if a person needs a referral for a gambling problem.

“People tend to be pretty honest with their doctor when asked about gambling,” Fong said. “Even the act of asking is enough to get people to start thinking.”

To meet the DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder, patients must exhibit at least four or more concerning behaviors in the previous 12 months.

For available treatments, “our toolbox is growing,” Fong said. “Psychotherapy probably works best,” including cognitive-behavioral therapy and relapse prevention approaches. “Twelve-step programs work very well,” Fong added.

Medications used for alcohol use disorder, such as naltrexone, an opioid antagonist, are prescribed for gambling disorder, with some success, he said. Often, developing a positive therapeutic relationship with a person who does not judge them is enough to change behavior, Fong said.

To provide treatment and other services, the UCLA program collaborates with the state Office of Problem Gambling. “We know that at least 70% of our patients who stay in treatment and participate in treatment make really meaningful gains and improvement in some part of their lives,” Fong said. “They do gamble less; they do gamble with less money.

 

Goal: Cold Turkey or Harm Reduction?

Fong tells gamblers seeking help: “My goal is to reduce the harm related to your gambling.” In working with patients, he identifies forms that are most problematic and those less likely to cause problems. For some, sports betting may be an issue, but going to Las Vegas a few times a year to play the slots may not generate harm for them. Many patients still gamble, he said, but have a better quality of life if they focus on health and wellness.

“Abstinence is just one domain,” Fong said. The others — home, health, self-care, a sense of purpose, community — are important, too. He helps patients to focus on those.”

Of all the addictions, gambling is one physicians are largely unaware of, Fong said. “And the patients have something that can be treated.”

Unwin, Strohm, and Fong reported no relevant financial disclosures. Physicians can attend open meetings of Gamblers Anonymous to find out more. Members of the group are available to speak to clinicians.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

Clinicians frequently reach out to Catherine Varney, DO, asking if it’s safe to prescribe glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) to patients with thyroid disorders, such as hypothyroidism, goiter, hyperthyroidism, and nodules.

The concerns often stem from prior animal studies that revealed a link between the medications and abnormal alterations in thyroid C cells.

“What physicians need to understand is that the increased risk of thyroid cancers is specifically in those with a personal or family history of multiple endocrine neoplasia 2 (MEN2) syndrome or medullary thyroid carcinoma [MTC],” said Varney, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Virginia (UVA) and obesity medicine director for UVA Health, both in Charlottesville.

MTC is a common manifestation of the MEN2 syndrome, a genetic disorder that affects the endocrine glands and can cause tumors in the thyroid gland. However, MTC is very rare, making up only 3%-5% of all thyroid cancers, Varney said.

More common types of thyroid cancers, such as papillary thyroid cancer, are not contraindications to GLP-1 RAs, said Laura Davisson, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and director of Medical Weight Management at West Virginia University, Morgantown. Papillary thyroid cancer makes up about 80% of all thyroid cancers.

If physicians are thinking about prescribing GLP-1 RAs, it’s important to learn the specific types of thyroid disorders in a patient or in their family history, Davisson said. A history of thyroid conditions, such as Graves disease, Hashimoto thyroiditis, or disorders requiring a patient to take thyroid medicine, such as levothyroxine, does not preclude a person from taking GLP-1 RAs.

If a patient does not know their family history, then a discussion about whether GLP-1 RAs are right for them should take place, Davisson said.

“They should take into consideration the risks and benefits of the medicine, and the fact that medullary thyroid cancer and MEN2 syndrome are rare, making the chances of them running in their family low,” she said. “If the patient understands the risks, they may decide the potential benefits may outweigh the risks.”

Keep in mind that the elevated risk for medullary thyroid carcinoma has not been clearly demonstrated in humans during clinical trials, only in rodents, Varney added. Rodents are more likely to develop thyroid cancer after exposure to a GLP-1 RA because rodents have higher numbers of GLP-1 receptors in their thyroid cells.

The risk for thyroid cancer is also dose dependent, and the amount of GLP-1 RA that induced thyroid tumors in the rodents was 8-60 times higher than that given to humans, Varney said.

“Nonetheless, there have been case reports of MTC in humans after taking GLP-1 RA,” she said.

 

What About GLP-1 RAs and Pancreatitis?

Pancreatitis is another condition that requires consideration when it comes to prescribing GLP-1 RAs.

While some studies show that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase the risk for pancreatitis, it’s important to know the reason behind pancreatitis before making a prescription decision, said Anila Chadha, MD, a family physician and obesity medicine physician at Dignity Health in Bakersfield, California.

If the pancreatitis is caused by alcohol or is medication induced, GLP-1 RAs are not recommended, Chadha said. If gallbladder stones are behind the pancreatitis, that’s different.

“If a patient has a well-documented history of gallstone-induced pancreatitis and the patient has had a cholecystectomy, it would be OK to prescribe GLP-1 [medications] after shared decision-making with the patient,” she said.

Some patients worry about taking GLP-1 RAs if they have other types of pancreatic disease beyond pancreatitis, said Davisson, but guidelines do not identify conditions such as pancreatic cysts or a family history of pancreatic cancer as contraindications to GLP-1 RAs.

However, be mindful that GLP-1 RA medications can increase gallbladder disease, Chadha said. A 2022 analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine, for example, found that the use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with an increased risk for gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.

If a history of gallstones is present, physicians should tell patients that GLP-1 RA analogs can increase biliary colic, chances of cholecystitis, or even cholecystitis, Chadha said.

Gallbladder disease itself is not a contraindication, she said, but these patients can experience more disease complications when taking GLP-1 RAs.

Varney recently treated a middle-aged female patient who experienced biliary colic after taking a GLP-1 RA medication. The patient had a starting body mass index (BMI) of about 45 and lost 24% of her starting weight over 12 months using a combination of strengthening and cardiovascular training; a reduced-calorie, high-protein diet; and semaglutide for weight loss, Varney said.

The patient began developing upper gastrointestinal symptoms, including mild biliary colic, without concerning lab findings. An ultrasound revealed that she had new gallstones, compared with an ultrasound a few years prior. Varney started the patient on ursodeoxycholic acid, and over the course of 6 weeks, the patient’s symptoms gradually improved and eventually resolved.

“In a situation like this, many physicians might have discontinued the obesity medication, potentially deciding not to restart it due to the symptoms she was experiencing,” Varney said. “However, I believe it’s important to recognize that these medications offer far more than just weight loss benefits. The positive effects extend to cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health, which are often overlooked when the focus is solely on the number on the scale or BMI.”

Other medical conditions that GLP-1 RAs may exacerbate include gastroparesis and diabetic retinopathy, Chadha noted. GLP-1 RA drugs can worsen these conditions and are not recommended for patients with such a history.

Nor are GLP-1 RA medications a good idea for patients struggling with severe constipation.

“It is very difficult to tolerate these medications because it can make constipation worse,” Chadha said. “In addition, if a patient struggles with severe heartburn, it can make the tolerability of these medications difficult.”

 

What Patients Should Know Before Using GLP-1 RAs

Not every overweight patient is a good candidate for GLP-1 RAs, and it’s important that doctors explain why the medications may not be right for them, Davisson said.

“If a patient only has a few pounds to lose (15-20 lb) and does not accept that these medications are intended to be a long-term treatment for the chronic diseases of diabetes or obesity, then they might not be a good candidate for the medication,” Davisson said.

Also essential is making sure patients are willing to follow appropriate healthy eating guidelines when on the medications, including getting enough protein and produce to maintain lean body mass and the necessary fiber to keep bowel habits regular.

Varney often hears concerns from physicians about the long-term effects of GLP-1 RAs. She said this class of medications has been used for nearly 20 years to treat type 2 diabetes, and the data over the past two decades have shown that the benefits of GLP-1 RAs far outweigh the risks for most patients.

Recent studies have also highlighted significant long-term benefits, including a marked reduction in cardiovascular events, heart failure, and kidney disease, she said.

“These outcomes underscore the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 RAs not just for obesity treatment but for improving overall health, particularly in high-risk populations,” she said. “As physicians, it’s crucial to consider this extensive body of evidence when evaluating the use of these medications for patients, especially when the potential health benefits extend well beyond weight loss alone.”

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

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among older veterans with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as an add-on therapy is associated with a higher risk for peripheral artery disease (PAD)-related surgical events than the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some placebo-controlled randomized trials have reported an increased risk for amputation with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with underlying cardiovascular diseases; however, the evidence remains unconfirmed by other subsequent trials.
• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of US veterans with T2D initiating SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors (a reference drug) as an add-on to metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin treatment alone or in combination.
• The primary outcome was the time to the first surgical event for PAD (amputation, peripheral revascularization and bypass, or peripheral vascular stent).
• A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare PAD event risk between the SGLT2 inhibitor and DPP-4 inhibitor groups, allowing events up to 90 days or 360 days after stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After propensity score weighting, 76,072 episodes of SGLT2 inhibitor use (94% empagliflozin, 4% canagliflozin, and 2% dapagliflozin) and 75,833 episodes of DPP-4 inhibitor use (45% saxagliptin, 34% alogliptin, 15% sitagliptin, and 6% linagliptin) were included.
• Participants had a median age of 69 years and a median duration of diabetes of 10.1 years.
• SGLT2 inhibitor users had higher PAD-related surgical events than DPP-4 inhibitor users (874 vs 780), with event rates of 11.2 vs 10.0 per 1000 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.18).
• The cumulative probability of PAD-related surgical events at 4 years was higher for SGLT2 inhibitor users than for DPP-4 inhibitor users (4.0% vs 2.8%, respectively).
• The results remained consistent after 90 and 360 days of stopping SGLT2 inhibitors.
• SGLT2 inhibitor use was also associated with a higher risk for amputation (aHR, 1.15) and revascularization (aHR, 1.25) events than DPP-4 inhibitor use.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results underscore the need to determine the safety of [SGLT2 inhibitor] use among patients with diabetes who remain at very high risk for PAD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Katherine E. Griffin, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, and published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded patients whose initial diabetes treatment was not metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, which might have influenced the interpretation of the results. The median follow-up period of approximately 0.7 years for both groups may have affected the number of amputations and revascularization events observed. The study population primarily comprised White men, limiting generalizability to women and other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding through an investigator-initiated grant from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Science Research and Development. Two authors received partial research support through a grant from the Center for Diabetes Translation Research. All authors received partial support from the VETWISE-LHS Center of Innovation. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.

Isothiazolinones

While the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis remains stable at around 20% of the population, new allergens are introduced due to changes in cosmetic formulations and evolving consumer habits. Recent culprits include methylisothiazolinone (MI), a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.

Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.

“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.

MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.

MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.

“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.

 

(Meth)acrylates

Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.

“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”

Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.

 

Investigating Essential Oil Use

Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.

Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.

 

Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use

Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.

“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.

 

Clinical Approach

When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.

Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.

The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role. 

A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.

This story was translated from Medscape’s 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.

Isothiazolinones

While the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis remains stable at around 20% of the population, new allergens are introduced due to changes in cosmetic formulations and evolving consumer habits. Recent culprits include methylisothiazolinone (MI), a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.

Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.

“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.

MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.

MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.

“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.

 

(Meth)acrylates

Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.

“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”

Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.

 

Investigating Essential Oil Use

Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.

Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.

 

Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use

Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.

“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.

 

Clinical Approach

When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.

Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.

The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role. 

A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.

This story was translated from Medscape’s 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.

Isothiazolinones

While the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis remains stable at around 20% of the population, new allergens are introduced due to changes in cosmetic formulations and evolving consumer habits. Recent culprits include methylisothiazolinone (MI), a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.

Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.

“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.

MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.

MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.

“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.

 

(Meth)acrylates

Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.

“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”

Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.

 

Investigating Essential Oil Use

Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.

Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.

 

Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use

Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.

“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.

 

Clinical Approach

When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.

Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.

The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role. 

A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.

This story was translated from Medscape’s 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 appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of. 

The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline. 

The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives. 

If somebody is smoking at age 35 and they continue to smoke, they could lose 9 years of life on average. We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.

Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?

They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. 

I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking. 

There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.

Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.