MDedge Endocrinology

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A review of 22 articles found a higher incidence of “altered skin sensations” and alopecia in individuals receiving oral semaglutide than in those receiving placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The Food and Drug Administration’s  has not received reports of semaglutide-related safety events, and few studies have characterized skin findings associated with oral or subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist used to treat obesity and type 2 diabetes.
• In this scoping review, researchers included 22 articles (15 clinical trials, six case reports, and one retrospective cohort study), published through January 2024, of patients receiving either semaglutide or a placebo or comparator, which included reports of semaglutide-associated adverse dermatologic events in 255 participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly reported a higher incidence of altered skin sensations, such as dysesthesia (1.8% vs 0%), hyperesthesia (1.2% vs 0%), skin pain (2.4% vs 0%), paresthesia (2.7% vs 0%), and sensitive skin (2.7% vs 0%), than those receiving placebo or comparator.
• Reports of alopecia (6.9% vs 0.3%) were higher in patients who received 50 mg oral semaglutide weekly than in those on placebo, but only 0.2% of patients on 2.4 mg of subcutaneous semaglutide reported alopecia vs 0.5% of those on placebo.
• Unspecified dermatologic reactions (4.1% vs 1.5%) were reported in more patients on subcutaneous semaglutide than those on a placebo or comparator. Several case reports described isolated cases of severe skin-related adverse effects, such as bullous pemphigoid, eosinophilic fasciitis, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.
• On the contrary, injection site reactions (3.5% vs 6.7%) were less common in patients on subcutaneous semaglutide compared with in those on a placebo or comparator.

IN PRACTICE:

“Variations in dosage and administration routes could influence the types and severity of skin findings, underscoring the need for additional research,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Megan M. Tran, BS, from the Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, led this study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not adjust for confounding factors and could not establish a direct causal association between semaglutide and the adverse reactions reported.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirzepatide vs basal insulins led to greater improvements in A1c and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of different baseline PPG or fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Tirzepatide led to better glycemic control than insulin degludec and insulin glargine in the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 trials, respectively, but the effect on FSG and PPG levels was not evaluated.
• In this post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed changes in various glycemic parameters in 3314 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), insulin degludec, or insulin glargine.
• Based on the median baseline glucose values, the patients were stratified into four subgroups: Low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG.
• The outcomes of interest were changes in FSG, PPG, A1c, and body weight from baseline to week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Tirzepatide and basal insulins effectively lowered A1c, PPG levels, and FSG levels at 52 weeks across all patient subgroups (all P < .05).
• All three doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater reductions in both A1c and PPG levels than in basal insulins (all P < .05).
• In the high FSG/high PPG subgroup, a greater reduction in FSG levels was observed with tirzepatide 10- and 15-mg doses vs insulin glargine (both P < .05) and insulin degludec vs tirzepatide 5 mg (P < .001).
• Furthermore, at week 52, tirzepatide led to body weight reduction (P < .05), but insulin treatment led to an increase in body weight (P < .05) in all subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Treatment with tirzepatide was consistently associated with more reduced PPG levels compared with insulin treatment across subgroups, including in participants with lower baseline PPG levels, in turn leading to greater A1c reductions,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Francesco Giorgino, MD, PhD, of the Section of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Andrology, and Metabolic Diseases, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations include post hoc nature of the study and the short treatment duration. The trials included only patients with diabetes and overweight or obesity, and therefore, the study findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and the SURPASS trials were funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors declared having several ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirzepatide vs basal insulins led to greater improvements in A1c and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of different baseline PPG or fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Tirzepatide led to better glycemic control than insulin degludec and insulin glargine in the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 trials, respectively, but the effect on FSG and PPG levels was not evaluated.
• In this post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed changes in various glycemic parameters in 3314 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), insulin degludec, or insulin glargine.
• Based on the median baseline glucose values, the patients were stratified into four subgroups: Low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG.
• The outcomes of interest were changes in FSG, PPG, A1c, and body weight from baseline to week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Tirzepatide and basal insulins effectively lowered A1c, PPG levels, and FSG levels at 52 weeks across all patient subgroups (all P < .05).
• All three doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater reductions in both A1c and PPG levels than in basal insulins (all P < .05).
• In the high FSG/high PPG subgroup, a greater reduction in FSG levels was observed with tirzepatide 10- and 15-mg doses vs insulin glargine (both P < .05) and insulin degludec vs tirzepatide 5 mg (P < .001).
• Furthermore, at week 52, tirzepatide led to body weight reduction (P < .05), but insulin treatment led to an increase in body weight (P < .05) in all subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Treatment with tirzepatide was consistently associated with more reduced PPG levels compared with insulin treatment across subgroups, including in participants with lower baseline PPG levels, in turn leading to greater A1c reductions,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Francesco Giorgino, MD, PhD, of the Section of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Andrology, and Metabolic Diseases, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations include post hoc nature of the study and the short treatment duration. The trials included only patients with diabetes and overweight or obesity, and therefore, the study findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and the SURPASS trials were funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors declared having several ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirzepatide vs basal insulins led to greater improvements in A1c and postprandial glucose (PPG) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of different baseline PPG or fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels.

METHODOLOGY:

• Tirzepatide led to better glycemic control than insulin degludec and insulin glargine in the SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4 trials, respectively, but the effect on FSG and PPG levels was not evaluated.
• In this post hoc analysis, the researchers assessed changes in various glycemic parameters in 3314 patients with T2D who were randomly assigned to receive tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg), insulin degludec, or insulin glargine.
• Based on the median baseline glucose values, the patients were stratified into four subgroups: Low FSG/low PPG, low FSG/high PPG, high FSG/low PPG, and high FSG/high PPG.
• The outcomes of interest were changes in FSG, PPG, A1c, and body weight from baseline to week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Tirzepatide and basal insulins effectively lowered A1c, PPG levels, and FSG levels at 52 weeks across all patient subgroups (all P < .05).
• All three doses of tirzepatide resulted in greater reductions in both A1c and PPG levels than in basal insulins (all P < .05).
• In the high FSG/high PPG subgroup, a greater reduction in FSG levels was observed with tirzepatide 10- and 15-mg doses vs insulin glargine (both P < .05) and insulin degludec vs tirzepatide 5 mg (P < .001).
• Furthermore, at week 52, tirzepatide led to body weight reduction (P < .05), but insulin treatment led to an increase in body weight (P < .05) in all subgroups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Treatment with tirzepatide was consistently associated with more reduced PPG levels compared with insulin treatment across subgroups, including in participants with lower baseline PPG levels, in turn leading to greater A1c reductions,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Francesco Giorgino, MD, PhD, of the Section of Internal Medicine, Endocrinology, Andrology, and Metabolic Diseases, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations include post hoc nature of the study and the short treatment duration. The trials included only patients with diabetes and overweight or obesity, and therefore, the study findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and the SURPASS trials were funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. The other authors declared having several ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Is lifestyle counseling needed with the more effective second-generation nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide?

If so, how intensive does the counseling need to be, and what components should be emphasized?

These are the clinical practice questions at the top of mind for healthcare professionals and researchers who provide care to patients who have overweight and/or obesity.

This is what we know. Lifestyle management is considered foundational in the care of patients with obesity.

Because obesity is fundamentally a disease of energy dysregulation, counseling has traditionally focused on dietary caloric reduction, increased physical activity, and strategies to adapt new cognitive and lifestyle behaviors.

On the basis of trial results from the Diabetes Prevention Program and the Look AHEAD studies, provision of intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) is recommended for treatment of obesity by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force).

IBT is commonly defined as consisting of 12-26 comprehensive and multicomponent sessions over the course of a year.

Reaffirming the primacy of lifestyle management, all antiobesity medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

The beneficial effect of combining IBT with earlier-generation medications like naltrexone/bupropion or liraglutide demonstrated that more participants in the trials achieved ≥ 10% weight loss with IBT compared with those taking the medication without IBT: 38.4% vs 20% for naltrexone/bupropion and 46% vs 33% for liraglutide.

Although there aren’t trial data for other first-generation medications like phentermine, orlistat, or phentermine/topiramate, it is assumed that patients taking these medications would also achieve greater weight loss when combined with IBT.

The obesity pharmacotherapy landscape was upended, however, with the approval of semaglutide (Wegovy), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, in 2021; and tirzepatide (Zepbound), a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide dual receptor agonist, in 2023.

These highly effective medications harness the effect of naturally occurring incretin hormones that reduce appetite through direct and indirect effects on the brain. Although the study designs differed between the STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials, the addition of IBT to semaglutide increased mean percent weight loss from 15% to 16% after 68 weeks of treatment (Wilding JPH et al; Wadden TA).

Comparable benefits from the STEP 3 and SURMOUNT-1 trials of adding IBT to tirzepatide at the maximal tolerated dose increased mean percent weight loss from 21% to 24% after 72 weeks (Wadden TA; Jastreboff AM). Though multicomponent IBT appears to provide greater weight loss when used with nutrient-stimulated hormone-based therapeutics, the additional benefit may be less when compared with first-generation medications.

So, how should we view the role and importance of lifestyle management when a patient is taking a second-generation medication? We need to shift the focus from prescribing a calorie-reduced diet to counseling for healthy eating patterns.

Because the second-generation drugs are more biologically effective in suppressing appetite (ie, reducing hunger, food noise, and cravings, and increasing satiation and satiety), it is easier for patients to reduce their food intake without a sense of deprivation. Furthermore, many patients express less desire to consume savory, sweet, and other enticing foods.

Patients should be encouraged to optimize the quality of their diet, prioritizing lean protein sources with meals and snacks; increasing fruits, vegetables, fiber, and complex carbohydrates; and keeping well hydrated. Because of the risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies while consuming a low-calorie diet — most notably calcium, iron, and vitamin D — patients may be advised to take a daily multivitamin supplement. Dietary counseling should be introduced when patients start pharmacotherapy, and if needed, referral to a registered dietitian nutritionist may be helpful in making these changes.

Additional counseling tips to mitigate the gastrointestinal side effects of these drugs that most commonly occur during the early dose-escalation phase include eating slowly; choosing smaller portion sizes; stopping eating when full; not skipping meals; and avoiding fatty, fried, and greasy foods. These dietary changes are particularly important over the first days after patients take the injection.

The increased weight loss achieved also raises concerns about the need to maintain lean body mass and the importance of physical activity and exercise counseling. All weight loss interventions, including dietary restriction, pharmacotherapy, or bariatric surgery, result in loss of fat mass and lean body mass.

The goal of lifestyle counseling is to minimize and preserve muscle mass (a component of lean body mass) which is needed for optimal health, mobility, daily function, and quality of life. Counseling should incorporate both aerobic and resistance training. Aerobic exercise (eg, brisk walking, jogging, dancing, elliptical machine, and cycling) improves cardiovascular fitness, metabolic health, and energy expenditure. Resistance (strength) training (eg, weightlifting, resistance bands, and circuit training) lessens the loss of muscle mass, enhances functional strength and mobility, and improves bone density (Gorgojo-Martinez JJ et al; Oppert JM et al).

Robust physical activity has also been shown to be a predictor of weight loss maintenance. A recently published randomized placebo-controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of supervised exercise in maintaining body weight and lean body mass after discontinuing 52 weeks of liraglutide treatment compared with no exercise.

Rather than minimizing the provision of lifestyle management, using highly effective second-generation therapeutics redirects the focus on how patients with obesity can strive to achieve a healthy and productive life.

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

Is lifestyle counseling needed with the more effective second-generation nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide?

If so, how intensive does the counseling need to be, and what components should be emphasized?

These are the clinical practice questions at the top of mind for healthcare professionals and researchers who provide care to patients who have overweight and/or obesity.

This is what we know. Lifestyle management is considered foundational in the care of patients with obesity.

Because obesity is fundamentally a disease of energy dysregulation, counseling has traditionally focused on dietary caloric reduction, increased physical activity, and strategies to adapt new cognitive and lifestyle behaviors.

On the basis of trial results from the Diabetes Prevention Program and the Look AHEAD studies, provision of intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) is recommended for treatment of obesity by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force).

IBT is commonly defined as consisting of 12-26 comprehensive and multicomponent sessions over the course of a year.

Reaffirming the primacy of lifestyle management, all antiobesity medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

The beneficial effect of combining IBT with earlier-generation medications like naltrexone/bupropion or liraglutide demonstrated that more participants in the trials achieved ≥ 10% weight loss with IBT compared with those taking the medication without IBT: 38.4% vs 20% for naltrexone/bupropion and 46% vs 33% for liraglutide.

Although there aren’t trial data for other first-generation medications like phentermine, orlistat, or phentermine/topiramate, it is assumed that patients taking these medications would also achieve greater weight loss when combined with IBT.

The obesity pharmacotherapy landscape was upended, however, with the approval of semaglutide (Wegovy), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, in 2021; and tirzepatide (Zepbound), a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide dual receptor agonist, in 2023.

These highly effective medications harness the effect of naturally occurring incretin hormones that reduce appetite through direct and indirect effects on the brain. Although the study designs differed between the STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials, the addition of IBT to semaglutide increased mean percent weight loss from 15% to 16% after 68 weeks of treatment (Wilding JPH et al; Wadden TA).

Comparable benefits from the STEP 3 and SURMOUNT-1 trials of adding IBT to tirzepatide at the maximal tolerated dose increased mean percent weight loss from 21% to 24% after 72 weeks (Wadden TA; Jastreboff AM). Though multicomponent IBT appears to provide greater weight loss when used with nutrient-stimulated hormone-based therapeutics, the additional benefit may be less when compared with first-generation medications.

So, how should we view the role and importance of lifestyle management when a patient is taking a second-generation medication? We need to shift the focus from prescribing a calorie-reduced diet to counseling for healthy eating patterns.

Because the second-generation drugs are more biologically effective in suppressing appetite (ie, reducing hunger, food noise, and cravings, and increasing satiation and satiety), it is easier for patients to reduce their food intake without a sense of deprivation. Furthermore, many patients express less desire to consume savory, sweet, and other enticing foods.

Patients should be encouraged to optimize the quality of their diet, prioritizing lean protein sources with meals and snacks; increasing fruits, vegetables, fiber, and complex carbohydrates; and keeping well hydrated. Because of the risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies while consuming a low-calorie diet — most notably calcium, iron, and vitamin D — patients may be advised to take a daily multivitamin supplement. Dietary counseling should be introduced when patients start pharmacotherapy, and if needed, referral to a registered dietitian nutritionist may be helpful in making these changes.

Additional counseling tips to mitigate the gastrointestinal side effects of these drugs that most commonly occur during the early dose-escalation phase include eating slowly; choosing smaller portion sizes; stopping eating when full; not skipping meals; and avoiding fatty, fried, and greasy foods. These dietary changes are particularly important over the first days after patients take the injection.

The increased weight loss achieved also raises concerns about the need to maintain lean body mass and the importance of physical activity and exercise counseling. All weight loss interventions, including dietary restriction, pharmacotherapy, or bariatric surgery, result in loss of fat mass and lean body mass.

The goal of lifestyle counseling is to minimize and preserve muscle mass (a component of lean body mass) which is needed for optimal health, mobility, daily function, and quality of life. Counseling should incorporate both aerobic and resistance training. Aerobic exercise (eg, brisk walking, jogging, dancing, elliptical machine, and cycling) improves cardiovascular fitness, metabolic health, and energy expenditure. Resistance (strength) training (eg, weightlifting, resistance bands, and circuit training) lessens the loss of muscle mass, enhances functional strength and mobility, and improves bone density (Gorgojo-Martinez JJ et al; Oppert JM et al).

Robust physical activity has also been shown to be a predictor of weight loss maintenance. A recently published randomized placebo-controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of supervised exercise in maintaining body weight and lean body mass after discontinuing 52 weeks of liraglutide treatment compared with no exercise.

Rather than minimizing the provision of lifestyle management, using highly effective second-generation therapeutics redirects the focus on how patients with obesity can strive to achieve a healthy and productive life.

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

Is lifestyle counseling needed with the more effective second-generation nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide?

If so, how intensive does the counseling need to be, and what components should be emphasized?

These are the clinical practice questions at the top of mind for healthcare professionals and researchers who provide care to patients who have overweight and/or obesity.

This is what we know. Lifestyle management is considered foundational in the care of patients with obesity.

Because obesity is fundamentally a disease of energy dysregulation, counseling has traditionally focused on dietary caloric reduction, increased physical activity, and strategies to adapt new cognitive and lifestyle behaviors.

On the basis of trial results from the Diabetes Prevention Program and the Look AHEAD studies, provision of intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) is recommended for treatment of obesity by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force).

IBT is commonly defined as consisting of 12-26 comprehensive and multicomponent sessions over the course of a year.

Reaffirming the primacy of lifestyle management, all antiobesity medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

The beneficial effect of combining IBT with earlier-generation medications like naltrexone/bupropion or liraglutide demonstrated that more participants in the trials achieved ≥ 10% weight loss with IBT compared with those taking the medication without IBT: 38.4% vs 20% for naltrexone/bupropion and 46% vs 33% for liraglutide.

Although there aren’t trial data for other first-generation medications like phentermine, orlistat, or phentermine/topiramate, it is assumed that patients taking these medications would also achieve greater weight loss when combined with IBT.

The obesity pharmacotherapy landscape was upended, however, with the approval of semaglutide (Wegovy), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, in 2021; and tirzepatide (Zepbound), a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide dual receptor agonist, in 2023.

These highly effective medications harness the effect of naturally occurring incretin hormones that reduce appetite through direct and indirect effects on the brain. Although the study designs differed between the STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials, the addition of IBT to semaglutide increased mean percent weight loss from 15% to 16% after 68 weeks of treatment (Wilding JPH et al; Wadden TA).

Comparable benefits from the STEP 3 and SURMOUNT-1 trials of adding IBT to tirzepatide at the maximal tolerated dose increased mean percent weight loss from 21% to 24% after 72 weeks (Wadden TA; Jastreboff AM). Though multicomponent IBT appears to provide greater weight loss when used with nutrient-stimulated hormone-based therapeutics, the additional benefit may be less when compared with first-generation medications.

So, how should we view the role and importance of lifestyle management when a patient is taking a second-generation medication? We need to shift the focus from prescribing a calorie-reduced diet to counseling for healthy eating patterns.

Because the second-generation drugs are more biologically effective in suppressing appetite (ie, reducing hunger, food noise, and cravings, and increasing satiation and satiety), it is easier for patients to reduce their food intake without a sense of deprivation. Furthermore, many patients express less desire to consume savory, sweet, and other enticing foods.

Patients should be encouraged to optimize the quality of their diet, prioritizing lean protein sources with meals and snacks; increasing fruits, vegetables, fiber, and complex carbohydrates; and keeping well hydrated. Because of the risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies while consuming a low-calorie diet — most notably calcium, iron, and vitamin D — patients may be advised to take a daily multivitamin supplement. Dietary counseling should be introduced when patients start pharmacotherapy, and if needed, referral to a registered dietitian nutritionist may be helpful in making these changes.

Additional counseling tips to mitigate the gastrointestinal side effects of these drugs that most commonly occur during the early dose-escalation phase include eating slowly; choosing smaller portion sizes; stopping eating when full; not skipping meals; and avoiding fatty, fried, and greasy foods. These dietary changes are particularly important over the first days after patients take the injection.

The increased weight loss achieved also raises concerns about the need to maintain lean body mass and the importance of physical activity and exercise counseling. All weight loss interventions, including dietary restriction, pharmacotherapy, or bariatric surgery, result in loss of fat mass and lean body mass.

The goal of lifestyle counseling is to minimize and preserve muscle mass (a component of lean body mass) which is needed for optimal health, mobility, daily function, and quality of life. Counseling should incorporate both aerobic and resistance training. Aerobic exercise (eg, brisk walking, jogging, dancing, elliptical machine, and cycling) improves cardiovascular fitness, metabolic health, and energy expenditure. Resistance (strength) training (eg, weightlifting, resistance bands, and circuit training) lessens the loss of muscle mass, enhances functional strength and mobility, and improves bone density (Gorgojo-Martinez JJ et al; Oppert JM et al).

Robust physical activity has also been shown to be a predictor of weight loss maintenance. A recently published randomized placebo-controlled trial demonstrated the benefit of supervised exercise in maintaining body weight and lean body mass after discontinuing 52 weeks of liraglutide treatment compared with no exercise.

Rather than minimizing the provision of lifestyle management, using highly effective second-generation therapeutics redirects the focus on how patients with obesity can strive to achieve a healthy and productive life.

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

TOPLINE:

Insulin resistance and obesity in adolescents may lead to increased abdominal fibrogenesis, impairing the capacity of the abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) to store lipids, which may cause fat accumulation in the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) depot and in other organs such as the liver.

METHODOLOGY:

• Abdominal fibrogenesis, but not adipose tissue expandability, is known to increase in adults with obesity and reduce insulin sensitivity; however, little is known about fibrogenesis in adolescents with obesity.
• In this study, researchers investigated if lipid dynamics, fibrogenesis, and abdominal and gluteal adipocyte turnover show dysregulation to a greater extent in insulin-resistant adolescents with obesity than in insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• They recruited 14 individuals between 12 and 20 years with a body mass index over 30 from the Yale  Clinic, of whom seven participants were classified as insulin resistant.
• Deuterated water methodologies were used to study the indices of adipocyte turnover, lipid dynamics, and fibrogenesis in abdominal and gluteal fat deposits.
• A 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test and multisection MRI scan of the abdominal region were used to assess the indices of glucose metabolism, abdominal fat distribution patterns, and liver fat content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The abdominal and gluteal SAT turnover rate of lipid components (triglyceride production and breakdown as well as de novo lipogenesis contribution) was similar in insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• The insoluble collagen (type I, subunit alpha2) level was higher in the abdominal adipose tissue of insulin-resistant adolescents than in insulin-sensitive adolescents (difference in fractional synthesis rate, 0.611; P < .001), indicating increased abdominal fibrogenesis.
• Abdominal insoluble collagen I alpha2 was associated with higher fasting plasma insulin levels (correlation [r], 0.579; P = .015), a higher visceral to total adipose tissue ratio (r, 0.643; P = .007), and a lower whole-body insulin sensitivity index (r, -0.540; P = .023).
• There was no evidence of increased collagen production in the gluteal adipose tissue, and as a result, fibrogenesis was observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The increased formation of insoluble collagen observed in insulin-resistant compared with insulin-sensitive individuals contributes to lipid spillover from SAT to VAT and, in turn, serves as a critically important mechanism involved in the complex sequelae of obesity-related metabolic and liver disease pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Aaron L. Slusher, Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not measure hepatic collagen synthesis rates. The analysis was performed on a small study population. The authors were also unable to assess potential sex differences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and Clara Guthrie Patterson Trust Mentored Research Award. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Insulin resistance and obesity in adolescents may lead to increased abdominal fibrogenesis, impairing the capacity of the abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) to store lipids, which may cause fat accumulation in the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) depot and in other organs such as the liver.

METHODOLOGY:

• Abdominal fibrogenesis, but not adipose tissue expandability, is known to increase in adults with obesity and reduce insulin sensitivity; however, little is known about fibrogenesis in adolescents with obesity.
• In this study, researchers investigated if lipid dynamics, fibrogenesis, and abdominal and gluteal adipocyte turnover show dysregulation to a greater extent in insulin-resistant adolescents with obesity than in insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• They recruited 14 individuals between 12 and 20 years with a body mass index over 30 from the Yale  Clinic, of whom seven participants were classified as insulin resistant.
• Deuterated water methodologies were used to study the indices of adipocyte turnover, lipid dynamics, and fibrogenesis in abdominal and gluteal fat deposits.
• A 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test and multisection MRI scan of the abdominal region were used to assess the indices of glucose metabolism, abdominal fat distribution patterns, and liver fat content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The abdominal and gluteal SAT turnover rate of lipid components (triglyceride production and breakdown as well as de novo lipogenesis contribution) was similar in insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• The insoluble collagen (type I, subunit alpha2) level was higher in the abdominal adipose tissue of insulin-resistant adolescents than in insulin-sensitive adolescents (difference in fractional synthesis rate, 0.611; P < .001), indicating increased abdominal fibrogenesis.
• Abdominal insoluble collagen I alpha2 was associated with higher fasting plasma insulin levels (correlation [r], 0.579; P = .015), a higher visceral to total adipose tissue ratio (r, 0.643; P = .007), and a lower whole-body insulin sensitivity index (r, -0.540; P = .023).
• There was no evidence of increased collagen production in the gluteal adipose tissue, and as a result, fibrogenesis was observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The increased formation of insoluble collagen observed in insulin-resistant compared with insulin-sensitive individuals contributes to lipid spillover from SAT to VAT and, in turn, serves as a critically important mechanism involved in the complex sequelae of obesity-related metabolic and liver disease pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Aaron L. Slusher, Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not measure hepatic collagen synthesis rates. The analysis was performed on a small study population. The authors were also unable to assess potential sex differences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and Clara Guthrie Patterson Trust Mentored Research Award. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Insulin resistance and obesity in adolescents may lead to increased abdominal fibrogenesis, impairing the capacity of the abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) to store lipids, which may cause fat accumulation in the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) depot and in other organs such as the liver.

METHODOLOGY:

• Abdominal fibrogenesis, but not adipose tissue expandability, is known to increase in adults with obesity and reduce insulin sensitivity; however, little is known about fibrogenesis in adolescents with obesity.
• In this study, researchers investigated if lipid dynamics, fibrogenesis, and abdominal and gluteal adipocyte turnover show dysregulation to a greater extent in insulin-resistant adolescents with obesity than in insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• They recruited 14 individuals between 12 and 20 years with a body mass index over 30 from the Yale  Clinic, of whom seven participants were classified as insulin resistant.
• Deuterated water methodologies were used to study the indices of adipocyte turnover, lipid dynamics, and fibrogenesis in abdominal and gluteal fat deposits.
• A 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test and multisection MRI scan of the abdominal region were used to assess the indices of glucose metabolism, abdominal fat distribution patterns, and liver fat content.

TAKEAWAY:

• The abdominal and gluteal SAT turnover rate of lipid components (triglyceride production and breakdown as well as de novo lipogenesis contribution) was similar in insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive adolescents with obesity.
• The insoluble collagen (type I, subunit alpha2) level was higher in the abdominal adipose tissue of insulin-resistant adolescents than in insulin-sensitive adolescents (difference in fractional synthesis rate, 0.611; P < .001), indicating increased abdominal fibrogenesis.
• Abdominal insoluble collagen I alpha2 was associated with higher fasting plasma insulin levels (correlation [r], 0.579; P = .015), a higher visceral to total adipose tissue ratio (r, 0.643; P = .007), and a lower whole-body insulin sensitivity index (r, -0.540; P = .023).
• There was no evidence of increased collagen production in the gluteal adipose tissue, and as a result, fibrogenesis was observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The increased formation of insoluble collagen observed in insulin-resistant compared with insulin-sensitive individuals contributes to lipid spillover from SAT to VAT and, in turn, serves as a critically important mechanism involved in the complex sequelae of obesity-related metabolic and liver disease pathology,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Aaron L. Slusher, Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers did not measure hepatic collagen synthesis rates. The analysis was performed on a small study population. The authors were also unable to assess potential sex differences.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health and Clara Guthrie Patterson Trust Mentored Research Award. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.

It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.

Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.

Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold. Concierge fees provide new revenue directly and serve as a tool to help recruit and retain physicians. Those doctors then provide lucrative referrals of their well-heeled patients to the hospitals that employ them.

“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.

“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”

Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.

“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.

Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.

Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.

“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.

Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.

“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.

Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.

One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.

Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.

For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.

George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.

“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.

Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.

Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.

“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”

Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.

NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.

NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.

KFF Health News  is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about  KFF .

Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.

It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.

Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.

Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold. Concierge fees provide new revenue directly and serve as a tool to help recruit and retain physicians. Those doctors then provide lucrative referrals of their well-heeled patients to the hospitals that employ them.

“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.

“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”

Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.

“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.

Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.

Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.

“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.

Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.

“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.

Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.

One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.

Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.

For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.

George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.

“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.

Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.

Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.

“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”

Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.

NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.

NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.

KFF Health News  is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about  KFF .

Nonprofit hospitals created largely to serve the poor are adding concierge physician practices, charging patients annual membership fees of $2,000 or more for easier access to their doctors.

It’s a trend that began decades ago with physician practices. Thousands of doctors have shifted to the concierge model, in which they can increase their income while decreasing their patient load.

Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, University Hospitals in the Cleveland area, and Baptist Health in Miami are among the large hospital systems offering concierge physician services. The fees, which can exceed $4,000 a year, are in addition to copayments, deductibles, and other charges not paid by patients’ insurance plans.

Critics of concierge medicine say the practice exacerbates primary care shortages, ensuring access only for the affluent, while driving up health care costs. But for tax-exempt hospitals, the financial benefits can be twofold. Concierge fees provide new revenue directly and serve as a tool to help recruit and retain physicians. Those doctors then provide lucrative referrals of their well-heeled patients to the hospitals that employ them.

“Hospitals are attracted to physicians that offer concierge services because their patients do not come with bad debts or a need for charity care, and most of them have private insurance which pays the hospital very well,” said Gerard Anderson, a hospital finance expert at Johns Hopkins University.

“They are the ideal patient, from the hospitals’ perspective.”

Concierge physicians typically limit their practices to a few hundred patients, compared with a couple of thousand for a traditional primary care doctor, so they can promise immediate access and longer visits.

“Every time we see these models expand, we are contracting the availability of primary care doctors for the general population,” said Jewel Mullen, associate dean for health equity at the University of Texas-Austin’s Dell Medical School. The former Connecticut health commissioner said concierge doctors join large hospital systems because of the institutions’ reputations, while hospitals sign up concierge physicians to ensure referrals to specialists and inpatient care. “It helps hospitals secure a bigger piece of their market,” she said.

Concierge physicians typically promise same-day or next-day appointments. Many provide patients their mobile phone number.

Aaron Klein, who oversees the concierge physician practices at Baptist Health, said the program was initially intended to serve donors.

“High-end donors wanted to make sure they have doctors to care for them,” he said.

Baptist opened its concierge program in 2019 and now has three practices across South Florida, where patients pay $2,500 a year.

“My philosophy is: It’s better to give world-class care to a few hundred patients rather than provide inadequate care to a few thousand patients,” Klein said.

Concierge physician practices started more than 20 years ago, mainly in upscale areas such as Boca Raton, Florida, and La Jolla, California. They catered mostly to wealthy retirees willing to pay extra for better physician access. Some of the first physician practices to enter the business were backed by private equity firms.

One of the largest, Boca Raton-based MDVIP, has more than 1,100 physicians and more than 390,000 patients. It was started in 2000, and since 2014 private equity firms have owned a majority stake in the company.

Some concierge physicians say their more attentive care means healthier patients. A study published last year by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Pennsylvania found no impact on mortality rates. What the study did find: higher costs.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers found that concierge medicine enrollment corresponded with a 30%-50% increase in total health care spending by patients.

For hospitals, “this is an extension of them consolidating the market,” said Adam Leive, a study co-author and an assistant professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. Inova Health Care Services in Fairfax, Virginia, one of the state’s largest tax-exempt hospital chains, employs 18 concierge doctors, who each handle no more than 400 patients. Those patients pay $2,200 a year for the privilege.

George Salem, 70, of McLean, Virginia, has been a patient in Inova’s concierge practice for several years along with his wife. Earlier this year he slammed his finger in a hotel door, he said. As soon as he got home, he called his physician, who saw him immediately and stitched up the wound. He said he sees his doctor about 10 to 12 times a year.

“I loved my internist before, but it was impossible to get to see him,” Salem said. Immediate access to his doctor “very much gives me peace of mind,” he said.

Craig Cheifetz, a vice president at Inova who oversees the concierge program, said the hospital system took interest in the model after MDVIP began moving aggressively into the Washington, D.C., suburbs about a decade ago. Today, Inova’s program has 6,000 patients.

Cheifetz disputes the charge that concierge physician programs exacerbate primary care shortages. The model keeps doctors who were considering retiring early in the business with a lighter caseload, he said. And the fees amount to no more than a few dollars a day — about what some people spend on coffee, he said.

“Inova has an incredible primary care network for those who can’t afford the concierge care,” he said. “We are still providing all that is necessary in primary care for those who need it.”

Some hospitals are starting concierge physician practices far from their home locations. For example, Tampa General Hospital in Florida last year opened a concierge practice in upper-middle-class Palm Beach Gardens, a roughly three-hour drive from Tampa. Mount Sinai Health System in New York runs a concierge physician practice in West Palm Beach.

NCH Healthcare System in Naples, Florida, employs 12 concierge physicians who treat about 3,000 patients total. “We found a need in this community for those who wanted a more personalized health care experience,” said James Brinkert, regional administrator for the system. Members pay an annual fee of at least $3,500.

NCH patients whose doctors convert to concierge and who don’t want to pay the membership fee are referred to other primary care practices or to urgent care, Brinkert said.

KFF Health News  is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about  KFF .

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of the federal Open Payments database found that the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion over nearly a decade.

Almost two thirds of eligible physicians — 826,313 doctors — received a payment from a drug or device maker from 2013 to 2022, according to a study published online in JAMA on March 28. Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

Orthopedists received the largest amount of payments in aggregate, $1.3 billion, followed by neurologists and psychiatrists at $1.2 billion and cardiologists at $1.29 billion.

Geriatric and nuclear medicine specialists and trauma and pediatric surgeons received the least amount of money in aggregate, and the mean amount paid to a pediatric surgeon in the top 0.1% was just $338,183 over the 9-year study period.

Excluding 2013 (the database was established in August that year), the total value of payments was highest in 2019 at $1.6 billion, up from $1.34 billion in 2014. It was lowest in 2020, the peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but dipped to $864 billion that year and rebounded to $1.28 billion in 2022, wrote the authors.

The Open Payments database, administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, requires drug and device makers and group purchasing organizations to report payments made to physicians, including for consulting services, speaking fees, food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

The database was created to shed light on these payments, which have been linked in multiple studies to more prescribing of a particular drug or more use of a particular device.

The JAMA review appeared to show that with the exception of the pandemic year, the relationships have more or less stayed the same since Open Payments began.

“There’s been no sea change, no massive shift in how these interactions are happening,” said Deborah C. Marshall, MD, assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who has studied industry payments.

“There’s no suggestion that anything is really changing other than that’s there is transparency,” said Robert Steinbrook, MD, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen.

Still, Dr. Steinbrook told this news organization, “it’s better to know this than to not know this.”

The unchanging nature of industry-physician relationships “suggests that to reduce the volume and magnitude of payments, more would need to be done,” he said.

“Really, this should be banned. Doctors should not be allowed to get gifts from pharmaceutical companies,” said Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices.

“The interactions wouldn’t be happening unless there was a purpose for them,” said Dr. Marshall. The relationships are “built with intention,” Dr. Marshall told this news organization.
 

Top Earners Range From $195,000 to $4.8 Million

Payments to the median physician over the study period ranged from $0 to $2339, but the mean payment to top earners — those in the top 0.1% — ranged from $194,933 for hospitalists to $4.8 million for orthopedic specialists.

Overall, the median payment was $48 per physician.

But small dollar amounts should not be discounted — even if it’s just a $25-catered lunch — said Aaron Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has studied industry-physician relationships. “The influence is not just in the dollar value,” Dr. Mitchell told this news organization. “It’s about the time listening to and the time in personal contact with industry representatives that these dollars are a marker for,” he said.

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” agreed Dr. Marshall. It’s “pretty well established” that lower-value payments do have influence, which is why academic institutions have established policies that limit gifts and meals and other payments from industry, she said.

Dr. Fugh-Berman said, “the size of the gift doesn’t really matter,” adding that research she conducted had shown that “accepting a meal increased not only the expense of the prescriptions that Medicare physicians wrote but also the number of prescriptions.”
 

Payments Mostly for High-Dollar Products

The top 25 drugs and devices that were related to industry payments tended to be high-cost brand-name products.

The top drug was Janssen’s Xarelto, an anticoagulant first approved in 2011 that costs about $600 a month, according to GoodRx. The drug has had annual sales of $4-$6 billion.

Xarelto was followed by Eliquis, another anticoagulant; Humira, used for a variety of autoimmune conditions including plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis; Invokana, Jardiance, and Farxiga, all for type 2 diabetes.

The top medical devices included the da Vinci Surgical System, Mako SmartRobotics, CoreValve Evolut, Natrelle Implants, and Impella, a heart pump that received a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning that it was associated with a heightened risk for death.
 

Industry Influence May Lead to Higher Cost, Poor Quality Care

Multiple studies have shown that payments to physicians tend to lead to increased prescribing and, often, higher costs for Medicare, a health system, or patients.

“I’m sure there are still a lot of physicians out there who think they’re getting away with something, that they can take meals, or they can take consulting fees and not be influenced, but there’s overwhelming data showing that it always influences you,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman.

One study in 2020 that used the Open Payments database found that physicians increase prescribing of the drugs for which they receive payment in the months just after the payment. The authors also showed that physicians who are paid prescribe lower-quality drugs following the payment, “although the magnitude is small and unlikely to be clinically significant.”

Dr. Marshall said that more studies are needed to determine whether quality of care is being affected when a physician prescribes a drug after an industry payment.

For now, there seems to be little appetite among physicians to give up the payments, said Dr. Marshall and others.

Physicians in some specialties see the payments as “an implicit statement about their value,” said Dr. Marshall.

In oncology, having received a lot of payments “gets worn more as a badge of honor,” said Dr. Mitchell.

The clinicians believe that “by collaborating with industry we are providing scientific expertise to help develop the next generation of technology and cures,” Dr. Mitchell said, adding that they see the payments “as a mark of their impact.”

Among the JAMA study authors, Joseph S. Ross, MD, reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of the manuscript or its review. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Steinbrook, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Over time, exercising at least twice a week is associated with significantly fewer insomnia symptoms and better sleep duration, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 4339 adults aged 39-67 years (48% men) from 21 centers in nine countries participating in the third follow-up to the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS III).
• Participants responded to questions about physical activity, insomnia symptoms, sleep duration, and daytime sleepiness at 10-year follow-up.
• Being “physically active” was defined as exercising with a frequency of at least twice a week for ≥ 1 hour per week.
• The main outcome measures were insomnia, sleep time, and daytime sleepiness in relation to physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• From baseline to follow-up, 37% of participants were persistently inactive, 25% were persistently active, 20% became inactive, and 18% became active.
• After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, and study center, persistently active participants were less likely to report difficulties with sleep initiation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), with short sleep duration of ≤ 6 hours/night (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) and long sleep of ≥ 9 hours/night (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84), compared with persistently nonactive subjects.
• Those who were persistently active were 22% less likely to report any symptoms of insomnia, 40% less likely to report two symptoms, and 37% less likely to report three symptoms.
• Daytime sleepiness and difficulties maintaining sleep were found to be unrelated to physical activity status.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study has a long follow-up period (10 years) and indicates strongly that consistency in physical activity might be an important factor in optimizing sleep duration and reducing the symptoms of insomnia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Erla Björnsdóttir, of the Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland, was the co-senior author and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 25 in BMJ Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It’s unclear whether individuals who were active at both timepoints had been continuously physically active throughout the study period or only at those two timepoints. Sleep variables were available only at follow-up and were all subjectively reported, meaning the associations between physical activity and sleep may not be longitudinal. Residual confounders (eg, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders or chronic pain) that can influence both sleep and exercise were not explored.

DISCLOSURES:

Financial support for ECRHS III was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Antwerp South, Antwerp City: Research Foundation Flanders (Belgium); Estonian Ministry of Education (Estonia); and other international agencies. Additional sources of funding were listed on the original paper. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Over time, exercising at least twice a week is associated with significantly fewer insomnia symptoms and better sleep duration, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 4339 adults aged 39-67 years (48% men) from 21 centers in nine countries participating in the third follow-up to the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS III).
• Participants responded to questions about physical activity, insomnia symptoms, sleep duration, and daytime sleepiness at 10-year follow-up.
• Being “physically active” was defined as exercising with a frequency of at least twice a week for ≥ 1 hour per week.
• The main outcome measures were insomnia, sleep time, and daytime sleepiness in relation to physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• From baseline to follow-up, 37% of participants were persistently inactive, 25% were persistently active, 20% became inactive, and 18% became active.
• After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, and study center, persistently active participants were less likely to report difficulties with sleep initiation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), with short sleep duration of ≤ 6 hours/night (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) and long sleep of ≥ 9 hours/night (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84), compared with persistently nonactive subjects.
• Those who were persistently active were 22% less likely to report any symptoms of insomnia, 40% less likely to report two symptoms, and 37% less likely to report three symptoms.
• Daytime sleepiness and difficulties maintaining sleep were found to be unrelated to physical activity status.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study has a long follow-up period (10 years) and indicates strongly that consistency in physical activity might be an important factor in optimizing sleep duration and reducing the symptoms of insomnia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Erla Björnsdóttir, of the Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland, was the co-senior author and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 25 in BMJ Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It’s unclear whether individuals who were active at both timepoints had been continuously physically active throughout the study period or only at those two timepoints. Sleep variables were available only at follow-up and were all subjectively reported, meaning the associations between physical activity and sleep may not be longitudinal. Residual confounders (eg, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders or chronic pain) that can influence both sleep and exercise were not explored.

DISCLOSURES:

Financial support for ECRHS III was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Antwerp South, Antwerp City: Research Foundation Flanders (Belgium); Estonian Ministry of Education (Estonia); and other international agencies. Additional sources of funding were listed on the original paper. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Over time, exercising at least twice a week is associated with significantly fewer insomnia symptoms and better sleep duration, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 4339 adults aged 39-67 years (48% men) from 21 centers in nine countries participating in the third follow-up to the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS III).
• Participants responded to questions about physical activity, insomnia symptoms, sleep duration, and daytime sleepiness at 10-year follow-up.
• Being “physically active” was defined as exercising with a frequency of at least twice a week for ≥ 1 hour per week.
• The main outcome measures were insomnia, sleep time, and daytime sleepiness in relation to physical activity.

TAKEAWAY:

• From baseline to follow-up, 37% of participants were persistently inactive, 25% were persistently active, 20% became inactive, and 18% became active.
• After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, and study center, persistently active participants were less likely to report difficulties with sleep initiation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), with short sleep duration of ≤ 6 hours/night (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) and long sleep of ≥ 9 hours/night (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84), compared with persistently nonactive subjects.
• Those who were persistently active were 22% less likely to report any symptoms of insomnia, 40% less likely to report two symptoms, and 37% less likely to report three symptoms.
• Daytime sleepiness and difficulties maintaining sleep were found to be unrelated to physical activity status.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study has a long follow-up period (10 years) and indicates strongly that consistency in physical activity might be an important factor in optimizing sleep duration and reducing the symptoms of insomnia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Erla Björnsdóttir, of the Department of Psychology, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland, was the co-senior author and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on March 25 in BMJ Open.

LIMITATIONS:

It’s unclear whether individuals who were active at both timepoints had been continuously physically active throughout the study period or only at those two timepoints. Sleep variables were available only at follow-up and were all subjectively reported, meaning the associations between physical activity and sleep may not be longitudinal. Residual confounders (eg, mental health and musculoskeletal disorders or chronic pain) that can influence both sleep and exercise were not explored.

DISCLOSURES:

Financial support for ECRHS III was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Antwerp South, Antwerp City: Research Foundation Flanders (Belgium); Estonian Ministry of Education (Estonia); and other international agencies. Additional sources of funding were listed on the original paper. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Data derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices can help guide nutrition management and insulin dosing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care settings.

At the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting, two experts from the International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, offered advice for clinicians. Tara Ettestad, RN, LD, CDCES, program manager for care transformation and training at the center, shared tips for helping patients change their diet based on CGM readings. The center’s medical director Thomas Martens, MD, provided a systematic approach to using CGM to guide adjustment of insulin doses and other medications for insulin-treated patients with T2D.
 

CGM-Guided Nutrition: Focus on Sustainable Changes

With CGM, people with diabetes get real-time feedback about the impact of foods on their glucose levels. This can help them learn not just what they can’t eat but what they can eat, Ms. Ettestad pointed out.

“People want to know what to eat. This is the number-one question that people who are newly diagnosed with diabetes ask, and unfortunately, they typically hear what not to eat. No carbohydrates, no sugar, no white foods, no sweets. This can be really disheartening and confusing for many. We should be focusing on sustainable changes to help improve diets,” she said.

She added, “Not everyone can see a dietitian, but all clinicians can help provide evidence-based nutrition guidance.”

When guiding patients, it’s important to focus on the four “core concepts” outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s nutrition consensus report:

• Emphasize nonstarchy vegetables
• Minimize added sugars and refined grains
• Eat more whole foods, less highly processed foods
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages with water as often as possible

With CGM, patients can see the differences in response to refined carbs (wheat, rice, and potato), sugars (sucrose, fructose, and glucose), and resistant starches (whole grains, fruits, and legumes). Typically, glucose responses are steeper and higher for the first two compared to resistant starches.

CGM can also show the effects of eating fat and protein, in that they can delay glucose responses to meals even with the same carbohydrate content, Ms. Ettestad said.

It’s important to remind patients that although one goal of using CGM is to reduce post-meal glucose spikes, eating a lot of high-saturated fat, high-calorie foods isn’t the healthful way to do it. “What’s really important when we’re using CGM to help guide nutrition is remembering nutrition quality and what can be good for glucose is not always good for our overall health,” Ms. Ettestad stressed.

She provided these further tips:

• Pick one meal at a time to focus on. Collaborate with patients to see what changes they are able and willing to make. For example, rather than entirely giving up rice or noodles at dinner, try eating less of those and adding more vegetables.
• Suggest that patients keep a food log or use a tracking app so that the source of specific glucose patterns can be identified and addressed.
• Show patients how to check their time in range (TIR) on their mobile device or reader each week so they can see big-picture results of their changes. “This can be really motivating for people to see,” she said.
• Remind people that glucose rises with meals. This seems obvious but may not be to those newly diagnosed, she pointed out.
• Educate patients on glucose targets and explain that other factors such as stress and activity can influence glucose levels.
• Focus on the positive. “What have you been learning about how your meals and beverages affect your glucose?”
• Help guide patients toward better diet quality, even when TIR is a goal, using the four core concepts.
• Encourage curiosity, such as by experimenting with portions, timing, or food order. “What if you try eating nonstarchy foods first?”
• Before adjusting a medication dose, consider asking if the patient is willing to make a nutrition change. “Every visit is an opportunity!”

Adjusting Insulin With the Help of CGM: Focus on Four Patient Subgroups

Dr. Martens noted that about a quarter of people with T2D will require insulin treatment, despite increasing use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. And even when insulin is used as a “salvage therapy” in T2D, about two thirds of those individuals still struggle to achieve an A1c below 7% with or without other glucose-lowering medications, he noted.

“So, we have this huge population with type 2 diabetes who have limited access to endocrinology, and advanced insulin delivery devices are not yet available for them. Can better use of CGM drive improvements in care?”

He pointed to MOBILE, a randomized clinical trial, which showed that CGM use resulted in significantly improved A1c at 8 months compared with fingerstick monitoring among adults with T2D taking long-acting insulin alone without premeal insulin. However, TIR was still just 59% (vs 43% with fingerstick testing), suggesting room for improvement.

“This could have been much, much better…Rapid interpretation isn’t really enough. We need to move from interpretation into action,” Dr. Martens said.

His team recently developed a program called “CGM Clinician Guided Management (CCGM)” aimed at primary care that encourages the following principles:

• Appropriate movement toward the safer “high value” noninsulin therapies, that is, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors.
• Appropriate insulin titration.
• Appropriate cycle time in titration, that is, accelerating more rapidly when one dose isn’t working. “That’s the Achilles heel of primary care,” he noted.
• Quick identification of when the limits of basal insulin therapy have been reached.
• Team-based management for difficult situations and for individuals on multiple daily injections and mealtime insulin regimens. “This is a group that really struggles…in primary care settings,” he noted.

The following three steps are based on published T2D management guidelines:

• Step 1: If the patient has atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, start with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. For those with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors are indicated.
• Step 2: Is the patient on sulfonylurea? Consider eliminating it before moving to CGM-based insulin titration.
• Step 3: Was there a change in therapy based on steps 1 or 2? If not, move to CGM-guided insulin titration. If yes, wait 2-4 weeks to see the impact of therapy change before moving on.

The program categorizes patients into one of four groups based on CGM data, with respective management approaches:

• Category 1: TIR > 70%, time below range (TBR) < 3%: Doing well, keep on going!
• Category 2: TIR > 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: Too much hypoglycemia, need to decrease therapy. Stop sulfonylureas, and if TBR > 10%, also decrease basal insulin dose.
• Category 3: TIR < 70%, TBR < 3%: Too much hyperglycemia — increase therapy.
• Category 4: TIR < 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: This is the toughest category. Fix or advance therapy. These patients should be either referred to a diabetes care and education specialist (formerly known as “diabetes educators”) to troubleshoot their regimens or have their therapy advanced to multiple daily injections. The hypoglycemia should be addressed first for safety, then the hyperglycemia.

“We hope that CCGM is going to be the translation of CGM data into action in primary care, where we struggle with action and inaction,” Dr. Martens said. It’s expected to be posted on the IDC website soon.

Ms. Ettestad’s employer received educational grant funds from Abbott Diabetes Care and Sanofi-Aventis Groupe. She also worked as a product trainer with Tandem Diabetes Care. She is employed by nonprofit International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities. Dr. Martens’ employer received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk and for consulting from Sanofi and Lilly. He is employed by nonprofit HealthPartners Institute – International Diabetes Center and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities.

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

Data derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices can help guide nutrition management and insulin dosing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care settings.

At the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting, two experts from the International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, offered advice for clinicians. Tara Ettestad, RN, LD, CDCES, program manager for care transformation and training at the center, shared tips for helping patients change their diet based on CGM readings. The center’s medical director Thomas Martens, MD, provided a systematic approach to using CGM to guide adjustment of insulin doses and other medications for insulin-treated patients with T2D.
 

CGM-Guided Nutrition: Focus on Sustainable Changes

With CGM, people with diabetes get real-time feedback about the impact of foods on their glucose levels. This can help them learn not just what they can’t eat but what they can eat, Ms. Ettestad pointed out.

“People want to know what to eat. This is the number-one question that people who are newly diagnosed with diabetes ask, and unfortunately, they typically hear what not to eat. No carbohydrates, no sugar, no white foods, no sweets. This can be really disheartening and confusing for many. We should be focusing on sustainable changes to help improve diets,” she said.

She added, “Not everyone can see a dietitian, but all clinicians can help provide evidence-based nutrition guidance.”

When guiding patients, it’s important to focus on the four “core concepts” outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s nutrition consensus report:

• Emphasize nonstarchy vegetables
• Minimize added sugars and refined grains
• Eat more whole foods, less highly processed foods
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages with water as often as possible

With CGM, patients can see the differences in response to refined carbs (wheat, rice, and potato), sugars (sucrose, fructose, and glucose), and resistant starches (whole grains, fruits, and legumes). Typically, glucose responses are steeper and higher for the first two compared to resistant starches.

CGM can also show the effects of eating fat and protein, in that they can delay glucose responses to meals even with the same carbohydrate content, Ms. Ettestad said.

It’s important to remind patients that although one goal of using CGM is to reduce post-meal glucose spikes, eating a lot of high-saturated fat, high-calorie foods isn’t the healthful way to do it. “What’s really important when we’re using CGM to help guide nutrition is remembering nutrition quality and what can be good for glucose is not always good for our overall health,” Ms. Ettestad stressed.

She provided these further tips:

• Pick one meal at a time to focus on. Collaborate with patients to see what changes they are able and willing to make. For example, rather than entirely giving up rice or noodles at dinner, try eating less of those and adding more vegetables.
• Suggest that patients keep a food log or use a tracking app so that the source of specific glucose patterns can be identified and addressed.
• Show patients how to check their time in range (TIR) on their mobile device or reader each week so they can see big-picture results of their changes. “This can be really motivating for people to see,” she said.
• Remind people that glucose rises with meals. This seems obvious but may not be to those newly diagnosed, she pointed out.
• Educate patients on glucose targets and explain that other factors such as stress and activity can influence glucose levels.
• Focus on the positive. “What have you been learning about how your meals and beverages affect your glucose?”
• Help guide patients toward better diet quality, even when TIR is a goal, using the four core concepts.
• Encourage curiosity, such as by experimenting with portions, timing, or food order. “What if you try eating nonstarchy foods first?”
• Before adjusting a medication dose, consider asking if the patient is willing to make a nutrition change. “Every visit is an opportunity!”

Adjusting Insulin With the Help of CGM: Focus on Four Patient Subgroups

Dr. Martens noted that about a quarter of people with T2D will require insulin treatment, despite increasing use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. And even when insulin is used as a “salvage therapy” in T2D, about two thirds of those individuals still struggle to achieve an A1c below 7% with or without other glucose-lowering medications, he noted.

“So, we have this huge population with type 2 diabetes who have limited access to endocrinology, and advanced insulin delivery devices are not yet available for them. Can better use of CGM drive improvements in care?”

He pointed to MOBILE, a randomized clinical trial, which showed that CGM use resulted in significantly improved A1c at 8 months compared with fingerstick monitoring among adults with T2D taking long-acting insulin alone without premeal insulin. However, TIR was still just 59% (vs 43% with fingerstick testing), suggesting room for improvement.

“This could have been much, much better…Rapid interpretation isn’t really enough. We need to move from interpretation into action,” Dr. Martens said.

His team recently developed a program called “CGM Clinician Guided Management (CCGM)” aimed at primary care that encourages the following principles:

• Appropriate movement toward the safer “high value” noninsulin therapies, that is, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors.
• Appropriate insulin titration.
• Appropriate cycle time in titration, that is, accelerating more rapidly when one dose isn’t working. “That’s the Achilles heel of primary care,” he noted.
• Quick identification of when the limits of basal insulin therapy have been reached.
• Team-based management for difficult situations and for individuals on multiple daily injections and mealtime insulin regimens. “This is a group that really struggles…in primary care settings,” he noted.

The following three steps are based on published T2D management guidelines:

• Step 1: If the patient has atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, start with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. For those with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors are indicated.
• Step 2: Is the patient on sulfonylurea? Consider eliminating it before moving to CGM-based insulin titration.
• Step 3: Was there a change in therapy based on steps 1 or 2? If not, move to CGM-guided insulin titration. If yes, wait 2-4 weeks to see the impact of therapy change before moving on.

The program categorizes patients into one of four groups based on CGM data, with respective management approaches:

• Category 1: TIR > 70%, time below range (TBR) < 3%: Doing well, keep on going!
• Category 2: TIR > 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: Too much hypoglycemia, need to decrease therapy. Stop sulfonylureas, and if TBR > 10%, also decrease basal insulin dose.
• Category 3: TIR < 70%, TBR < 3%: Too much hyperglycemia — increase therapy.
• Category 4: TIR < 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: This is the toughest category. Fix or advance therapy. These patients should be either referred to a diabetes care and education specialist (formerly known as “diabetes educators”) to troubleshoot their regimens or have their therapy advanced to multiple daily injections. The hypoglycemia should be addressed first for safety, then the hyperglycemia.

“We hope that CCGM is going to be the translation of CGM data into action in primary care, where we struggle with action and inaction,” Dr. Martens said. It’s expected to be posted on the IDC website soon.

Ms. Ettestad’s employer received educational grant funds from Abbott Diabetes Care and Sanofi-Aventis Groupe. She also worked as a product trainer with Tandem Diabetes Care. She is employed by nonprofit International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities. Dr. Martens’ employer received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk and for consulting from Sanofi and Lilly. He is employed by nonprofit HealthPartners Institute – International Diabetes Center and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities.

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

Data derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices can help guide nutrition management and insulin dosing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in primary care settings.

At the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes meeting, two experts from the International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, offered advice for clinicians. Tara Ettestad, RN, LD, CDCES, program manager for care transformation and training at the center, shared tips for helping patients change their diet based on CGM readings. The center’s medical director Thomas Martens, MD, provided a systematic approach to using CGM to guide adjustment of insulin doses and other medications for insulin-treated patients with T2D.
 

CGM-Guided Nutrition: Focus on Sustainable Changes

With CGM, people with diabetes get real-time feedback about the impact of foods on their glucose levels. This can help them learn not just what they can’t eat but what they can eat, Ms. Ettestad pointed out.

“People want to know what to eat. This is the number-one question that people who are newly diagnosed with diabetes ask, and unfortunately, they typically hear what not to eat. No carbohydrates, no sugar, no white foods, no sweets. This can be really disheartening and confusing for many. We should be focusing on sustainable changes to help improve diets,” she said.

She added, “Not everyone can see a dietitian, but all clinicians can help provide evidence-based nutrition guidance.”

When guiding patients, it’s important to focus on the four “core concepts” outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s nutrition consensus report:

• Emphasize nonstarchy vegetables
• Minimize added sugars and refined grains
• Eat more whole foods, less highly processed foods
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages with water as often as possible

With CGM, patients can see the differences in response to refined carbs (wheat, rice, and potato), sugars (sucrose, fructose, and glucose), and resistant starches (whole grains, fruits, and legumes). Typically, glucose responses are steeper and higher for the first two compared to resistant starches.

CGM can also show the effects of eating fat and protein, in that they can delay glucose responses to meals even with the same carbohydrate content, Ms. Ettestad said.

It’s important to remind patients that although one goal of using CGM is to reduce post-meal glucose spikes, eating a lot of high-saturated fat, high-calorie foods isn’t the healthful way to do it. “What’s really important when we’re using CGM to help guide nutrition is remembering nutrition quality and what can be good for glucose is not always good for our overall health,” Ms. Ettestad stressed.

She provided these further tips:

• Pick one meal at a time to focus on. Collaborate with patients to see what changes they are able and willing to make. For example, rather than entirely giving up rice or noodles at dinner, try eating less of those and adding more vegetables.
• Suggest that patients keep a food log or use a tracking app so that the source of specific glucose patterns can be identified and addressed.
• Show patients how to check their time in range (TIR) on their mobile device or reader each week so they can see big-picture results of their changes. “This can be really motivating for people to see,” she said.
• Remind people that glucose rises with meals. This seems obvious but may not be to those newly diagnosed, she pointed out.
• Educate patients on glucose targets and explain that other factors such as stress and activity can influence glucose levels.
• Focus on the positive. “What have you been learning about how your meals and beverages affect your glucose?”
• Help guide patients toward better diet quality, even when TIR is a goal, using the four core concepts.
• Encourage curiosity, such as by experimenting with portions, timing, or food order. “What if you try eating nonstarchy foods first?”
• Before adjusting a medication dose, consider asking if the patient is willing to make a nutrition change. “Every visit is an opportunity!”

Adjusting Insulin With the Help of CGM: Focus on Four Patient Subgroups

Dr. Martens noted that about a quarter of people with T2D will require insulin treatment, despite increasing use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. And even when insulin is used as a “salvage therapy” in T2D, about two thirds of those individuals still struggle to achieve an A1c below 7% with or without other glucose-lowering medications, he noted.

“So, we have this huge population with type 2 diabetes who have limited access to endocrinology, and advanced insulin delivery devices are not yet available for them. Can better use of CGM drive improvements in care?”

He pointed to MOBILE, a randomized clinical trial, which showed that CGM use resulted in significantly improved A1c at 8 months compared with fingerstick monitoring among adults with T2D taking long-acting insulin alone without premeal insulin. However, TIR was still just 59% (vs 43% with fingerstick testing), suggesting room for improvement.

“This could have been much, much better…Rapid interpretation isn’t really enough. We need to move from interpretation into action,” Dr. Martens said.

His team recently developed a program called “CGM Clinician Guided Management (CCGM)” aimed at primary care that encourages the following principles:

• Appropriate movement toward the safer “high value” noninsulin therapies, that is, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors.
• Appropriate insulin titration.
• Appropriate cycle time in titration, that is, accelerating more rapidly when one dose isn’t working. “That’s the Achilles heel of primary care,” he noted.
• Quick identification of when the limits of basal insulin therapy have been reached.
• Team-based management for difficult situations and for individuals on multiple daily injections and mealtime insulin regimens. “This is a group that really struggles…in primary care settings,” he noted.

The following three steps are based on published T2D management guidelines:

• Step 1: If the patient has atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, start with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. For those with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors are indicated.
• Step 2: Is the patient on sulfonylurea? Consider eliminating it before moving to CGM-based insulin titration.
• Step 3: Was there a change in therapy based on steps 1 or 2? If not, move to CGM-guided insulin titration. If yes, wait 2-4 weeks to see the impact of therapy change before moving on.

The program categorizes patients into one of four groups based on CGM data, with respective management approaches:

• Category 1: TIR > 70%, time below range (TBR) < 3%: Doing well, keep on going!
• Category 2: TIR > 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: Too much hypoglycemia, need to decrease therapy. Stop sulfonylureas, and if TBR > 10%, also decrease basal insulin dose.
• Category 3: TIR < 70%, TBR < 3%: Too much hyperglycemia — increase therapy.
• Category 4: TIR < 70%, TBR ≥ 3%: This is the toughest category. Fix or advance therapy. These patients should be either referred to a diabetes care and education specialist (formerly known as “diabetes educators”) to troubleshoot their regimens or have their therapy advanced to multiple daily injections. The hypoglycemia should be addressed first for safety, then the hyperglycemia.

“We hope that CCGM is going to be the translation of CGM data into action in primary care, where we struggle with action and inaction,” Dr. Martens said. It’s expected to be posted on the IDC website soon.

Ms. Ettestad’s employer received educational grant funds from Abbott Diabetes Care and Sanofi-Aventis Groupe. She also worked as a product trainer with Tandem Diabetes Care. She is employed by nonprofit International Diabetes Center – HealthPartners Institute and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities. Dr. Martens’ employer received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk and for consulting from Sanofi and Lilly. He is employed by nonprofit HealthPartners Institute – International Diabetes Center and received no personal income or honoraria from these activities.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) make providing coordinated, efficient care easier and reduce medical errors and test duplications; research has also correlated EHR adoption with higher patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, for physicians, the benefits come at a cost.

Physicians spend significantly more time in healthcare portals, making notes, entering orders, reviewing clinical reports, and responding to patient messages.

“I spend at least the same amount of time in the portal that I do in scheduled clinical time with patients,” said Eve Rittenberg, MD, primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “So, if I have a 4-hour session of seeing patients, I spend at least another 4 or more hours in the patient portal.”

The latest data showed that primary care physicians logged a median of 36.2 minutes in the healthcare portal per patient visit, spending 58.9% more time on orders, 24.4% more time reading and responding to messages, and 13% more time on chart review compared with prepandemic portal use.

“EHRs can be very powerful tools,” said Ralph DeBiasi, MD, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist at Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. “We’re still working on how to best harness that power to make us better doctors and better care teams and to take better care of our patients because their use can take up a lot of time.”
 

Portal Time Isn’t Paid Time

Sharp increases in the amount of time spent in the EHR responding to messages or dispensing medical advice via the portal often aren’t linked to increases in compensation; most portal time is unpaid.

“There isn’t specific time allocated to working in the portal; it’s either done in the office while a patient is sitting in an exam room or in the mornings and evenings outside of traditional working hours,” Dr. DeBiasi told this news organization. “I think it’s reasonable to consider it being reimbursed because we’re taking our time and effort and making decisions to help the patient.”

Compensation for portal time affects all physicians, but the degree of impact depends on their specialties. Primary care physicians spent significantly more daily and after-hours time in the EHR, entering notes and orders, and doing clinical reviews compared to surgical and medical specialties.

In addition to the outsized impact on primary care, physician compensation for portal time is also an equity issue.

Dr. Rittenberg researched the issue and found a higher volume of communication from both patients and staff to female physicians than male physicians. As a result, female physicians spend 41.4 minutes more on the EHR than their male counterparts, which equates to more unpaid time. It’s likely no coincidence then that burnout rates are also higher among female physicians, who also leave the clinical workforce in higher numbers, especially in primary care.

“Finding ways to fairly compensate physicians for their work also will address some of the equity issues in workload and the consequences,” Dr. Rittenberg said.
 

Addressing the Issue

Some health systems have started charging patients who seek medical advice via patient portals, equating the communication to asynchronous acute care or an additional care touch point and billing based on the length and complexity of the messages. Patient fees for seeking medical advice via portals vary widely depending on their health system and insurance.

At University of California San Francisco Health, billing patients for EHR communication led to a sharp decrease in patient messages, which eased physician workload. At Cleveland Clinic, physicians receive “productivity credits” for the time spent in the EHR that can be used to reduce their clinic hours (but have no impact on their compensation).

Changes to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule also allow physicians to bill for “digital evaluation and management” based on the time spent in an EHR responding to patient-initiated questions and requests.

However, more efforts are needed to ease burnout and reverse the number of physicians who are seeing fewer patients or leaving medical practice altogether as a direct result of spending increasing amounts of unpaid time in the EHR. Dr. Rittenberg, who spends an estimated 50% of her working hours in the portal, had to reduce her clinical workload by 25% due to such heavy portal requirements.

“The workload has become unsustainable,” she said. “The work has undergone a dramatic change over the past decade, and the compensation system has not kept up with that change.”
 

Prioritizing Patient and Physician Experiences

The ever-expanding use of EHRs is a result of their value as a healthcare tool. Data showed that the electronic exchange of information between patients and physicians improves diagnostics, reduces medical errors, enhances communication, and leads to more patient-centered care — and physicians want their patients to use the portal to maximize their healthcare.

“[The EHR] is good for patients,” said Dr. DeBiasi. “Sometimes, patients have access issues with healthcare, whether that’s not knowing what number to call or getting the right message to the right person at the right office. If [the portal] is good for them and helps them get access to care, we should embrace that and figure out a way to work it into our day-to-day schedules.”

But maximizing the patient experience shouldn’t come at the physicians’ expense. Dr. Rittenberg advocates a model that compensates physicians for the time spent in the EHR and prioritizes a team approach to rebalance the EHR workload to ensure that physicians aren’t devoting too much time to administrative tasks and can, instead, focus their time on clinical tasks.

“The way in which we provide healthcare has fundamentally shifted, and compensation models need to reflect that new reality,” Dr. Rittenberg added.

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