Cardiology News

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel

A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.

I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. As anyone who has lost a loved one to suicide knows, it is an unknowable, fatal disease. Very few of my patients know my story. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.

Kaiser Permanente

At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.

Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.

Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.

Courtesy Jeffrey Benabio, MD

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Persistent hypertriglyceridemia is linked to an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in young adults, independent of lifestyle factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective study analyzed the data of 1,840,251 individuals aged 20-39 years from the South Korean National Health Insurance Service database (mean age 34 years, 71% male).
• The individuals had undergone four consecutive annual health checkups between 2009 and 2012 and had no history of T2D.
• The individuals were sorted into five groups indicating the number of hypertriglyceridemia diagnoses over four consecutive years: 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, defined as serum fasting triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher.
• Data on lifestyle-related risk factors, such as smoking status and heavy alcohol consumption, were collected through self-reported questionnaires.
• The primary outcome was newly diagnosed cases of T2D. Over a mean follow-up of 6.53 years, a total of 40,286 individuals developed T2D.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of T2D increased with an increase in exposure scores for hypertriglyceridemia (log-rank test, P < .001), independent of lifestyle-related factors.
• The incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 1.25 for participants with an exposure score of 0 and 11.55 for those with a score of 4.
• For individuals with exposure scores of 1, 2, 3, and 4, the adjusted hazard ratios for incident diabetes were 1.674 (95% CI, 1.619-1.732), 2.192 (2.117-2.269), 2.637 (2.548-2.73), and 3.715 (3.6-3.834), respectively, vs those with an exposure score of 0.
• Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested the risk for T2D in persistent hypertriglyceridemia were more pronounced among people in their 20s than in their 30s and in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identification of individuals at higher risk based on triglyceride levels and management strategies for persistent hypertriglyceridemia in young adults could potentially reduce the burden of young-onset type 2 diabetes and enhance long-term health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Min-Kyung Lee, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The scoring system based on fasting triglyceride levels of ≥ 150 mg/dL may have limitations, as the cumulative incidence of T2D also varied significantly for mean triglyceride levels. Moreover, relying on a single annual health checkup for hypertriglyceridemia diagnosis might not capture short-term fluctuations. Despite sufficient cases and a high follow-up rate, the study might have underestimated the incidence of T2D.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government and the faculty grant of Myongji Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Persistent hypertriglyceridemia is linked to an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in young adults, independent of lifestyle factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective study analyzed the data of 1,840,251 individuals aged 20-39 years from the South Korean National Health Insurance Service database (mean age 34 years, 71% male).
• The individuals had undergone four consecutive annual health checkups between 2009 and 2012 and had no history of T2D.
• The individuals were sorted into five groups indicating the number of hypertriglyceridemia diagnoses over four consecutive years: 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, defined as serum fasting triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher.
• Data on lifestyle-related risk factors, such as smoking status and heavy alcohol consumption, were collected through self-reported questionnaires.
• The primary outcome was newly diagnosed cases of T2D. Over a mean follow-up of 6.53 years, a total of 40,286 individuals developed T2D.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of T2D increased with an increase in exposure scores for hypertriglyceridemia (log-rank test, P < .001), independent of lifestyle-related factors.
• The incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 1.25 for participants with an exposure score of 0 and 11.55 for those with a score of 4.
• For individuals with exposure scores of 1, 2, 3, and 4, the adjusted hazard ratios for incident diabetes were 1.674 (95% CI, 1.619-1.732), 2.192 (2.117-2.269), 2.637 (2.548-2.73), and 3.715 (3.6-3.834), respectively, vs those with an exposure score of 0.
• Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested the risk for T2D in persistent hypertriglyceridemia were more pronounced among people in their 20s than in their 30s and in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identification of individuals at higher risk based on triglyceride levels and management strategies for persistent hypertriglyceridemia in young adults could potentially reduce the burden of young-onset type 2 diabetes and enhance long-term health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Min-Kyung Lee, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The scoring system based on fasting triglyceride levels of ≥ 150 mg/dL may have limitations, as the cumulative incidence of T2D also varied significantly for mean triglyceride levels. Moreover, relying on a single annual health checkup for hypertriglyceridemia diagnosis might not capture short-term fluctuations. Despite sufficient cases and a high follow-up rate, the study might have underestimated the incidence of T2D.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government and the faculty grant of Myongji Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Persistent hypertriglyceridemia is linked to an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in young adults, independent of lifestyle factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective study analyzed the data of 1,840,251 individuals aged 20-39 years from the South Korean National Health Insurance Service database (mean age 34 years, 71% male).
• The individuals had undergone four consecutive annual health checkups between 2009 and 2012 and had no history of T2D.
• The individuals were sorted into five groups indicating the number of hypertriglyceridemia diagnoses over four consecutive years: 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, defined as serum fasting triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher.
• Data on lifestyle-related risk factors, such as smoking status and heavy alcohol consumption, were collected through self-reported questionnaires.
• The primary outcome was newly diagnosed cases of T2D. Over a mean follow-up of 6.53 years, a total of 40,286 individuals developed T2D.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of T2D increased with an increase in exposure scores for hypertriglyceridemia (log-rank test, P < .001), independent of lifestyle-related factors.
• The incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 1.25 for participants with an exposure score of 0 and 11.55 for those with a score of 4.
• For individuals with exposure scores of 1, 2, 3, and 4, the adjusted hazard ratios for incident diabetes were 1.674 (95% CI, 1.619-1.732), 2.192 (2.117-2.269), 2.637 (2.548-2.73), and 3.715 (3.6-3.834), respectively, vs those with an exposure score of 0.
• Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested the risk for T2D in persistent hypertriglyceridemia were more pronounced among people in their 20s than in their 30s and in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identification of individuals at higher risk based on triglyceride levels and management strategies for persistent hypertriglyceridemia in young adults could potentially reduce the burden of young-onset type 2 diabetes and enhance long-term health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Min-Kyung Lee, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The scoring system based on fasting triglyceride levels of ≥ 150 mg/dL may have limitations, as the cumulative incidence of T2D also varied significantly for mean triglyceride levels. Moreover, relying on a single annual health checkup for hypertriglyceridemia diagnosis might not capture short-term fluctuations. Despite sufficient cases and a high follow-up rate, the study might have underestimated the incidence of T2D.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean Government and the faculty grant of Myongji Hospital. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A universal cardiovascular disease (CVD) prediction tool performs well in patients with and without atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), a new study showed, suggesting this model could facilitate transition from primary to secondary prevention by streamlining risk classification.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used different models to evaluate whether established CVD predictors, including age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, or smoking, are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure (HF), among 9138 patients, mean age 63.8 years, in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.
• Of these, 609 had ASCVD (history of MI, ischemic stroke, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease) and 8529 did not.
• They extended their exploration to other predictors available in clinical practice, including family history of premature ASCVD, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B, as well as predictors of HF such as body mass index and heart rate and blood-based cardiac biomarkers.
• An external validation analysis included 5322 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).
• Over a median follow-up of 18.9 years, 3209 ARIC participants (35%) developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 21.3 for MACE, 12.6 for MI/stroke, and 13.8 for HF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of all candidate predictors, 10 variables (including established predictors and cardiac biomarkers) were included in the universal prediction model, which demonstrated good calibration in both those with ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] C-statistic, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.650-0.735) and without ASCVD (HR C-statistic, 0.748; 95% CI, 0.726-0.770).
• As anticipated, the risk for MACE was generally lower in those with no prior ASCVD, but the 5-year risk in the highest quintile of predicted risk in those without ASCVD was higher than that in the lowest two quintiles of the ASCVD group.
• The universal risk prediction model was validated in the MESA community–based cohort; over a median follow-up of 13.7 years, 12% of participants with and without prior ASCVD developed MACE for an incidence rate per 1000 person-years of 10.2 for MACE, 7.4 for MI/stroke, and 4.3 for HF.
• The results were generally similar when examining individual outcomes (MI/stroke and HF) and for both no ASCVD and ASCVD groups across demographic subgroups by age, sex, and race.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings “support the importance of established predictors for classifying long-term CVD risk in both primary and secondary prevention settings,” the authors wrote, adding an advantage to this risk prediction approach could be to help providers and patients “further personalize secondary prevention.”

In an accompanying editorial, Pier Sergio Saba, MD, PhD, Clinical and Interventional Cardiology, Sassari University Hospital, Sassari, Italy, and others said the universal risk assessment approach “is conceptually promising” but noted patients with ASCVD represented only 7% of the study population, and this population was relatively young, potentially limiting the applicability of this risk model in older individuals. Before the risk model can be used in clinical settings, results need to be validated and given incorporation of cardiac biomarkers, “careful cost-benefit analyses may also be needed,” the editorial writers added.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Yejin Mok, PHD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and colleagues. It was published online on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC).

LIMITATIONS:

The somewhat limited number of study participants with prior ASCVD precluded researchers from quantifying the prognostic impact of ASCVD subtypes (eg, history of MI vs stroke vs peripheral artery disease). The study didn’t have data on some predictors recognized in guidelines (eg, coronary artery calcium and left ventricular ejection fraction). The ARIC analysis included only Black and White participants, and although models were validated in MESA, which included Chinese and Hispanic adults, extrapolation of results to more racially/ethnically diverse populations should be done with care.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. The MESA study was supported by the NHLBI and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Replacing regular salt with a salt substitute reduced the incidence of new hypertension compared with a usual salt group, without provoking hypotension, new data showed.

Among a group of older adults with normal blood pressure (BP), those who swapped table salt for a salt substitute — consisting of 62.5% sodium chloride, 25% potassium chloride, and 12.5% flavorings — were 40% less apt to develop hypertension over 2 years than were peers who continued with regular salt.

“From a public health perspective, our study results indicate that everyone in the whole population, either hypertensive or normotensive, can benefit from replacing regular salt with potassium-enriched salt substitute,” lead author Yangfeng Wu, MD, PhD, professor and executive associate director, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing, China, told this news organization.

“Thus, salt substitution should be considered and promoted as a whole-population strategy for prevention and control of hypertension and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Wu said.

The study was published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the failing strategy to reduce the intake of salt worldwide, salt substitution is an attractive alternative. The food industry and authorities should prepare strategies for wide-scale implementation of salt substitutes,” Rik Olde Engberink, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Center, wrote in a linked editorial.

Population Strategy for Hypertension Prevention

The DECIDE-Salt clinical trial was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 48 residential elderly care facilities in China with 1612 participants (1230 men and 382 women) aged 55 years or older. The trial assessed the effect of two sodium reduction strategies in lowering BP — replacing salt with a salt substitute and progressive restriction of the salt supply.

In the original study, the salt substitute intervention lowered systolic/diastolic BP significantly by 7.1/1.9 mm Hg vs the usual salt group. The progressive restriction of salt had no impact on BP vs usual salt or salt substitute groups.

This post hoc analysis of DECIDE-Salt focused on 609 participants (mean age, 71 years; 74% men) who were normotensive at baseline (mean BP, 122/74 mm Hg), with 298 in the usual salt group and 313 in the salt substitute group.

Compared with the usual salt group, the salt substitute group had a lower incidence of hypertension over 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; P = .02), with no increase in episodes of hypotension (P = .76).

From baseline to 2 years, there was no change in mean systolic/diastolic BP in the salt substitution group, whereas the usual salt group experienced a significant increase in systolic/diastolic BP (mean, 7.0/2.1 mm Hg).

The post hoc results from DECIDE-Salt are in line with a previous study from Peru, which also investigated mostly normotensive participants and reported a 51% lower risk of developing hypertension in the salt substitute group, as reported previously by this news organization.

“Although the study involved only participants aged 55 years and above, the epidemic of hypertension and its relations with sodium and potassium intake are not limited to older adults. Thus, we believe the salt substitution should also be beneficial to younger adults,” Dr. Wu said.

Notable Analysis

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, Division of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, said the study is “notable due to the limited and conflicting reports on the effects of salt substitution in individuals with normal blood pressure.”

“There is a growing body of literature on the impact of salt substitution in controlling hypertension, but less is known about prevention,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“The study certainly has population-level implications, as the design of a cluster-randomized trial at the facility level makes for a clear path to implementation — sodium substitution in elderly care facilities. That said, this is also the greatest limitation — extrapolating to the general population may not be accurate,” Dr. Shah noted.

There is also a potential concern with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, who typically are advised to lower potassium intake.

“Supplementing potassium could result in hyperkalemia, which can be life-threatening if severe, and patients taking medications that interfere with the kidney’s ability to excrete potassium should be cautious as well,” Dr. Shah said.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Key Research and Development Program, Ministry of Science and Technology of China. China Salt General Company at Yulin provided the usual salt and salt substitute used in the study free of charge. Dr. Wu, Dr. Engberink, and Dr. Shah had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing regular salt with a salt substitute reduced the incidence of new hypertension compared with a usual salt group, without provoking hypotension, new data showed.

Among a group of older adults with normal blood pressure (BP), those who swapped table salt for a salt substitute — consisting of 62.5% sodium chloride, 25% potassium chloride, and 12.5% flavorings — were 40% less apt to develop hypertension over 2 years than were peers who continued with regular salt.

“From a public health perspective, our study results indicate that everyone in the whole population, either hypertensive or normotensive, can benefit from replacing regular salt with potassium-enriched salt substitute,” lead author Yangfeng Wu, MD, PhD, professor and executive associate director, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing, China, told this news organization.

“Thus, salt substitution should be considered and promoted as a whole-population strategy for prevention and control of hypertension and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Wu said.

The study was published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the failing strategy to reduce the intake of salt worldwide, salt substitution is an attractive alternative. The food industry and authorities should prepare strategies for wide-scale implementation of salt substitutes,” Rik Olde Engberink, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Center, wrote in a linked editorial.

Population Strategy for Hypertension Prevention

The DECIDE-Salt clinical trial was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 48 residential elderly care facilities in China with 1612 participants (1230 men and 382 women) aged 55 years or older. The trial assessed the effect of two sodium reduction strategies in lowering BP — replacing salt with a salt substitute and progressive restriction of the salt supply.

In the original study, the salt substitute intervention lowered systolic/diastolic BP significantly by 7.1/1.9 mm Hg vs the usual salt group. The progressive restriction of salt had no impact on BP vs usual salt or salt substitute groups.

This post hoc analysis of DECIDE-Salt focused on 609 participants (mean age, 71 years; 74% men) who were normotensive at baseline (mean BP, 122/74 mm Hg), with 298 in the usual salt group and 313 in the salt substitute group.

Compared with the usual salt group, the salt substitute group had a lower incidence of hypertension over 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; P = .02), with no increase in episodes of hypotension (P = .76).

From baseline to 2 years, there was no change in mean systolic/diastolic BP in the salt substitution group, whereas the usual salt group experienced a significant increase in systolic/diastolic BP (mean, 7.0/2.1 mm Hg).

The post hoc results from DECIDE-Salt are in line with a previous study from Peru, which also investigated mostly normotensive participants and reported a 51% lower risk of developing hypertension in the salt substitute group, as reported previously by this news organization.

“Although the study involved only participants aged 55 years and above, the epidemic of hypertension and its relations with sodium and potassium intake are not limited to older adults. Thus, we believe the salt substitution should also be beneficial to younger adults,” Dr. Wu said.

Notable Analysis

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, Division of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, said the study is “notable due to the limited and conflicting reports on the effects of salt substitution in individuals with normal blood pressure.”

“There is a growing body of literature on the impact of salt substitution in controlling hypertension, but less is known about prevention,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“The study certainly has population-level implications, as the design of a cluster-randomized trial at the facility level makes for a clear path to implementation — sodium substitution in elderly care facilities. That said, this is also the greatest limitation — extrapolating to the general population may not be accurate,” Dr. Shah noted.

There is also a potential concern with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, who typically are advised to lower potassium intake.

“Supplementing potassium could result in hyperkalemia, which can be life-threatening if severe, and patients taking medications that interfere with the kidney’s ability to excrete potassium should be cautious as well,” Dr. Shah said.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Key Research and Development Program, Ministry of Science and Technology of China. China Salt General Company at Yulin provided the usual salt and salt substitute used in the study free of charge. Dr. Wu, Dr. Engberink, and Dr. Shah had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing regular salt with a salt substitute reduced the incidence of new hypertension compared with a usual salt group, without provoking hypotension, new data showed.

Among a group of older adults with normal blood pressure (BP), those who swapped table salt for a salt substitute — consisting of 62.5% sodium chloride, 25% potassium chloride, and 12.5% flavorings — were 40% less apt to develop hypertension over 2 years than were peers who continued with regular salt.

“From a public health perspective, our study results indicate that everyone in the whole population, either hypertensive or normotensive, can benefit from replacing regular salt with potassium-enriched salt substitute,” lead author Yangfeng Wu, MD, PhD, professor and executive associate director, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing, China, told this news organization.

“Thus, salt substitution should be considered and promoted as a whole-population strategy for prevention and control of hypertension and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Wu said.

The study was published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the failing strategy to reduce the intake of salt worldwide, salt substitution is an attractive alternative. The food industry and authorities should prepare strategies for wide-scale implementation of salt substitutes,” Rik Olde Engberink, MD, PhD, with Amsterdam University Medical Center, wrote in a linked editorial.

Population Strategy for Hypertension Prevention

The DECIDE-Salt clinical trial was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 48 residential elderly care facilities in China with 1612 participants (1230 men and 382 women) aged 55 years or older. The trial assessed the effect of two sodium reduction strategies in lowering BP — replacing salt with a salt substitute and progressive restriction of the salt supply.

In the original study, the salt substitute intervention lowered systolic/diastolic BP significantly by 7.1/1.9 mm Hg vs the usual salt group. The progressive restriction of salt had no impact on BP vs usual salt or salt substitute groups.

This post hoc analysis of DECIDE-Salt focused on 609 participants (mean age, 71 years; 74% men) who were normotensive at baseline (mean BP, 122/74 mm Hg), with 298 in the usual salt group and 313 in the salt substitute group.

Compared with the usual salt group, the salt substitute group had a lower incidence of hypertension over 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; P = .02), with no increase in episodes of hypotension (P = .76).

From baseline to 2 years, there was no change in mean systolic/diastolic BP in the salt substitution group, whereas the usual salt group experienced a significant increase in systolic/diastolic BP (mean, 7.0/2.1 mm Hg).

The post hoc results from DECIDE-Salt are in line with a previous study from Peru, which also investigated mostly normotensive participants and reported a 51% lower risk of developing hypertension in the salt substitute group, as reported previously by this news organization.

“Although the study involved only participants aged 55 years and above, the epidemic of hypertension and its relations with sodium and potassium intake are not limited to older adults. Thus, we believe the salt substitution should also be beneficial to younger adults,” Dr. Wu said.

Notable Analysis

Reached for comment, Ankur Shah, MD, Division of Kidney Disease and Hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, said the study is “notable due to the limited and conflicting reports on the effects of salt substitution in individuals with normal blood pressure.”

“There is a growing body of literature on the impact of salt substitution in controlling hypertension, but less is known about prevention,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“The study certainly has population-level implications, as the design of a cluster-randomized trial at the facility level makes for a clear path to implementation — sodium substitution in elderly care facilities. That said, this is also the greatest limitation — extrapolating to the general population may not be accurate,” Dr. Shah noted.

There is also a potential concern with salt substitutes in patients with kidney disease, who typically are advised to lower potassium intake.

“Supplementing potassium could result in hyperkalemia, which can be life-threatening if severe, and patients taking medications that interfere with the kidney’s ability to excrete potassium should be cautious as well,” Dr. Shah said.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Key Research and Development Program, Ministry of Science and Technology of China. China Salt General Company at Yulin provided the usual salt and salt substitute used in the study free of charge. Dr. Wu, Dr. Engberink, and Dr. Shah had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.