Hematology News

A small cohort study of pediatric rheumatology patients with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) who presented to a specialized rheumatology* clinic suggests that many such patients have abnormal bleeding symptoms, in comparison with health control patients.

The study of 81 patients with GJH found that about three quarters had significantly elevated median bleeding scores, but only 12% had been assessed by hematology for bleeding.

“We propose that screening for bleeding symptoms should be integrated into the routine care for all patients with GJH, with hematology referrals for patients with increased bleeding concerns,” wrote a research team led by Nicole E. Kendel, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, in a study published online in Arthritis Care and Research.

“Further studies are needed to understand the mechanism of bleeding, evaluate comorbidities associated with these bleeding symptoms, and potentially allow for tailored pharmacologic therapy,” the authors stated.
 

Background

Dr. Kendel’s team had reported moderate menstruation-associated limitations in school, social, and physical activities among female adolescents with GJH. “This cohort also experienced nonreproductive bleeding symptoms and demonstrated minimal hemostatic laboratory abnormalities, indicating that this population may be underdiagnosed and subsequently poorly managed,” she said in an interview. “As excessive bleeding symptoms could have a significant impact on overall health and quality of life, we thought it was important to define the incidence and natural course of bleeding symptoms in a more generalized subset of this population.”

Although the investigators hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant increase in bleeding scores, “we were still impressed by the frequency of abnormal scores, particularly when looking at the low percentage of patients [12%] who had previously been referred to hematology,” she said.
 

Study results

The median age of the study cohort was 13 years (interquartile range, 10-16 years), and 72.8% were female. The mean Beighton score, which measures joint flexibility, was 6.2 (range, 4-9). All participants were seen by rheumatologists and were diagnosed for conditions on the hypermobility spectrum. Those conditions ranged from GJH to hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS).

Abnormal bleeding, as measured by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool, was found in 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-84%). Overall mean and median bleeding scores were 5.2 and 4, respectively; scores ranged from 0 to 16. Abnormal scores of ≥ 3 were observed for patients < 8 years of age, ≥ 4 for men ≥ 18 years of age, and ≥ 6 for women ≥ 18 years of age. These measures were significantly elevated compared with those reported for historical healthy pediatric control persons (P < .001).

The most common hemorrhagic symptom was oral bleeding (74.1%) that occurred with tooth brushing, flossing, tooth loss, or eruption. Others reported easy bruising (59.3%) and bleeding from minor wounds (42%). In terms of procedures, tooth extraction requiring additional packing was reported by 25.9%, and 22.2% reported significant bleeding after otolaryngologic procedures, such as tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, septoplasty, and nasal turbinate reduction.

Prolonged or heavy menstrual periods were reported by 37.3% of female patients.

Bleeding scores did not differ by biological sex or NSAID use, nor did any correlation emerge between patients’ bleeding and Beighton scores. However, there was a positive correlation with increasing age, a phenomenon observed with other bleeding disorders and in the healthy population, the authors noted.

Of the 10 study participants who had previously undergone hematologic assessment, one had been diagnosed with acquired, heart disease–related von Willebrand disease, and another with mild bleeding disorder.

Severe connective tissue disorders are associated with increased bleeding symptoms in the adult population, Dr. Kendel said, but few studies have assessed bleeding across the GJH spectrum, particularly in children.

Bleeding is thought to be due to modifications of collagen in the blood vessels. “These modifications create mechanical weakness of the vessel wall, as well as defective subendothelial connective tissue supporting those blood vessels,” Dr. Kendel explained. She noted that altered collagen creates defective interactions between collagen and other coagulation factors.

“Even in the presence of a normal laboratory evaluation, GJH can lead to symptoms consistent with a mild bleeding disorder,” she continued. “These symptoms are both preventable and treatable. I’m hopeful more centers will start routinely evaluating for increased bleeding symptoms, with referral to hematology for those with increased bleeding concerns.”

Commenting on the study’s recommendation, Beth S. Gottlieb, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the investigation, said a brief questionnaire on bleeding risk is a reasonable addition to a rheumatology office visit.

“Joint hypermobility is very common, but not all affected children meet the criteria for the hypermobile form of hEDS,” she told this news organization. “Screening for bleeding tendency is often done as routine medical history questions. Once a child is identified as hypermobile, these screening questions are usually asked, but utilizing one of the formal bleeding risk questionnaires is not currently routine.”

According to Dr. Gottlieb, it remains unclear whether screening would have a significant impact on children who have been diagnosed with hypermobility. “Most of these children are young and may not yet have a significant history for bleeding tendency,” she said. “Education of families is always important, and it will be essential to educate without adding unnecessary stress. Screening guidelines may be an important tool that is easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice.”
 

Limitation

The study was limited by selection bias, as patients had all been referred to a specialized rheumatology clinic.

The study was supported by the Clinical and Translational Intramural Funding Program of the Abigail Wexner Research Institute. The authors and Dr. Gottlieb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 1/11/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the type of specialty clinic where patients were first seen. 

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

A small cohort study of pediatric rheumatology patients with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) who presented to a specialized rheumatology* clinic suggests that many such patients have abnormal bleeding symptoms, in comparison with health control patients.

The study of 81 patients with GJH found that about three quarters had significantly elevated median bleeding scores, but only 12% had been assessed by hematology for bleeding.

“We propose that screening for bleeding symptoms should be integrated into the routine care for all patients with GJH, with hematology referrals for patients with increased bleeding concerns,” wrote a research team led by Nicole E. Kendel, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, in a study published online in Arthritis Care and Research.

“Further studies are needed to understand the mechanism of bleeding, evaluate comorbidities associated with these bleeding symptoms, and potentially allow for tailored pharmacologic therapy,” the authors stated.
 

Background

Dr. Kendel’s team had reported moderate menstruation-associated limitations in school, social, and physical activities among female adolescents with GJH. “This cohort also experienced nonreproductive bleeding symptoms and demonstrated minimal hemostatic laboratory abnormalities, indicating that this population may be underdiagnosed and subsequently poorly managed,” she said in an interview. “As excessive bleeding symptoms could have a significant impact on overall health and quality of life, we thought it was important to define the incidence and natural course of bleeding symptoms in a more generalized subset of this population.”

Although the investigators hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant increase in bleeding scores, “we were still impressed by the frequency of abnormal scores, particularly when looking at the low percentage of patients [12%] who had previously been referred to hematology,” she said.
 

Study results

The median age of the study cohort was 13 years (interquartile range, 10-16 years), and 72.8% were female. The mean Beighton score, which measures joint flexibility, was 6.2 (range, 4-9). All participants were seen by rheumatologists and were diagnosed for conditions on the hypermobility spectrum. Those conditions ranged from GJH to hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS).

Abnormal bleeding, as measured by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool, was found in 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-84%). Overall mean and median bleeding scores were 5.2 and 4, respectively; scores ranged from 0 to 16. Abnormal scores of ≥ 3 were observed for patients < 8 years of age, ≥ 4 for men ≥ 18 years of age, and ≥ 6 for women ≥ 18 years of age. These measures were significantly elevated compared with those reported for historical healthy pediatric control persons (P < .001).

The most common hemorrhagic symptom was oral bleeding (74.1%) that occurred with tooth brushing, flossing, tooth loss, or eruption. Others reported easy bruising (59.3%) and bleeding from minor wounds (42%). In terms of procedures, tooth extraction requiring additional packing was reported by 25.9%, and 22.2% reported significant bleeding after otolaryngologic procedures, such as tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, septoplasty, and nasal turbinate reduction.

Prolonged or heavy menstrual periods were reported by 37.3% of female patients.

Bleeding scores did not differ by biological sex or NSAID use, nor did any correlation emerge between patients’ bleeding and Beighton scores. However, there was a positive correlation with increasing age, a phenomenon observed with other bleeding disorders and in the healthy population, the authors noted.

Of the 10 study participants who had previously undergone hematologic assessment, one had been diagnosed with acquired, heart disease–related von Willebrand disease, and another with mild bleeding disorder.

Severe connective tissue disorders are associated with increased bleeding symptoms in the adult population, Dr. Kendel said, but few studies have assessed bleeding across the GJH spectrum, particularly in children.

Bleeding is thought to be due to modifications of collagen in the blood vessels. “These modifications create mechanical weakness of the vessel wall, as well as defective subendothelial connective tissue supporting those blood vessels,” Dr. Kendel explained. She noted that altered collagen creates defective interactions between collagen and other coagulation factors.

“Even in the presence of a normal laboratory evaluation, GJH can lead to symptoms consistent with a mild bleeding disorder,” she continued. “These symptoms are both preventable and treatable. I’m hopeful more centers will start routinely evaluating for increased bleeding symptoms, with referral to hematology for those with increased bleeding concerns.”

Commenting on the study’s recommendation, Beth S. Gottlieb, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the investigation, said a brief questionnaire on bleeding risk is a reasonable addition to a rheumatology office visit.

“Joint hypermobility is very common, but not all affected children meet the criteria for the hypermobile form of hEDS,” she told this news organization. “Screening for bleeding tendency is often done as routine medical history questions. Once a child is identified as hypermobile, these screening questions are usually asked, but utilizing one of the formal bleeding risk questionnaires is not currently routine.”

According to Dr. Gottlieb, it remains unclear whether screening would have a significant impact on children who have been diagnosed with hypermobility. “Most of these children are young and may not yet have a significant history for bleeding tendency,” she said. “Education of families is always important, and it will be essential to educate without adding unnecessary stress. Screening guidelines may be an important tool that is easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice.”
 

Limitation

The study was limited by selection bias, as patients had all been referred to a specialized rheumatology clinic.

The study was supported by the Clinical and Translational Intramural Funding Program of the Abigail Wexner Research Institute. The authors and Dr. Gottlieb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 1/11/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the type of specialty clinic where patients were first seen. 

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

A small cohort study of pediatric rheumatology patients with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) who presented to a specialized rheumatology* clinic suggests that many such patients have abnormal bleeding symptoms, in comparison with health control patients.

The study of 81 patients with GJH found that about three quarters had significantly elevated median bleeding scores, but only 12% had been assessed by hematology for bleeding.

“We propose that screening for bleeding symptoms should be integrated into the routine care for all patients with GJH, with hematology referrals for patients with increased bleeding concerns,” wrote a research team led by Nicole E. Kendel, MD, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, in a study published online in Arthritis Care and Research.

“Further studies are needed to understand the mechanism of bleeding, evaluate comorbidities associated with these bleeding symptoms, and potentially allow for tailored pharmacologic therapy,” the authors stated.
 

Background

Dr. Kendel’s team had reported moderate menstruation-associated limitations in school, social, and physical activities among female adolescents with GJH. “This cohort also experienced nonreproductive bleeding symptoms and demonstrated minimal hemostatic laboratory abnormalities, indicating that this population may be underdiagnosed and subsequently poorly managed,” she said in an interview. “As excessive bleeding symptoms could have a significant impact on overall health and quality of life, we thought it was important to define the incidence and natural course of bleeding symptoms in a more generalized subset of this population.”

Although the investigators hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant increase in bleeding scores, “we were still impressed by the frequency of abnormal scores, particularly when looking at the low percentage of patients [12%] who had previously been referred to hematology,” she said.
 

Study results

The median age of the study cohort was 13 years (interquartile range, 10-16 years), and 72.8% were female. The mean Beighton score, which measures joint flexibility, was 6.2 (range, 4-9). All participants were seen by rheumatologists and were diagnosed for conditions on the hypermobility spectrum. Those conditions ranged from GJH to hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS).

Abnormal bleeding, as measured by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool, was found in 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%-84%). Overall mean and median bleeding scores were 5.2 and 4, respectively; scores ranged from 0 to 16. Abnormal scores of ≥ 3 were observed for patients < 8 years of age, ≥ 4 for men ≥ 18 years of age, and ≥ 6 for women ≥ 18 years of age. These measures were significantly elevated compared with those reported for historical healthy pediatric control persons (P < .001).

The most common hemorrhagic symptom was oral bleeding (74.1%) that occurred with tooth brushing, flossing, tooth loss, or eruption. Others reported easy bruising (59.3%) and bleeding from minor wounds (42%). In terms of procedures, tooth extraction requiring additional packing was reported by 25.9%, and 22.2% reported significant bleeding after otolaryngologic procedures, such as tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, septoplasty, and nasal turbinate reduction.

Prolonged or heavy menstrual periods were reported by 37.3% of female patients.

Bleeding scores did not differ by biological sex or NSAID use, nor did any correlation emerge between patients’ bleeding and Beighton scores. However, there was a positive correlation with increasing age, a phenomenon observed with other bleeding disorders and in the healthy population, the authors noted.

Of the 10 study participants who had previously undergone hematologic assessment, one had been diagnosed with acquired, heart disease–related von Willebrand disease, and another with mild bleeding disorder.

Severe connective tissue disorders are associated with increased bleeding symptoms in the adult population, Dr. Kendel said, but few studies have assessed bleeding across the GJH spectrum, particularly in children.

Bleeding is thought to be due to modifications of collagen in the blood vessels. “These modifications create mechanical weakness of the vessel wall, as well as defective subendothelial connective tissue supporting those blood vessels,” Dr. Kendel explained. She noted that altered collagen creates defective interactions between collagen and other coagulation factors.

“Even in the presence of a normal laboratory evaluation, GJH can lead to symptoms consistent with a mild bleeding disorder,” she continued. “These symptoms are both preventable and treatable. I’m hopeful more centers will start routinely evaluating for increased bleeding symptoms, with referral to hematology for those with increased bleeding concerns.”

Commenting on the study’s recommendation, Beth S. Gottlieb, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the investigation, said a brief questionnaire on bleeding risk is a reasonable addition to a rheumatology office visit.

“Joint hypermobility is very common, but not all affected children meet the criteria for the hypermobile form of hEDS,” she told this news organization. “Screening for bleeding tendency is often done as routine medical history questions. Once a child is identified as hypermobile, these screening questions are usually asked, but utilizing one of the formal bleeding risk questionnaires is not currently routine.”

According to Dr. Gottlieb, it remains unclear whether screening would have a significant impact on children who have been diagnosed with hypermobility. “Most of these children are young and may not yet have a significant history for bleeding tendency,” she said. “Education of families is always important, and it will be essential to educate without adding unnecessary stress. Screening guidelines may be an important tool that is easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice.”
 

Limitation

The study was limited by selection bias, as patients had all been referred to a specialized rheumatology clinic.

The study was supported by the Clinical and Translational Intramural Funding Program of the Abigail Wexner Research Institute. The authors and Dr. Gottlieb have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 1/11/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the type of specialty clinic where patients were first seen. 

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

You discuss and decide on the best course of treatment for your patients, write prescriptions, and recommend lifestyle modifications to enhance treatment outcomes and overall wellness. But once they leave your office, following through is up to the patient. What happens when they don’t listen?

The term “nonadherent” has gradually replaced “noncompliant” in the physician lexicon as a nod to the evolving doctor-patient relationship. Noncompliance implies that a patient isn’t following their doctor’s orders. Adherence, on the other hand, is a measure of how closely your patient’s behavior matches the recommendations you’ve made. It’s a subtle difference but an important distinction in approaching care.

“Noncompliance is inherently negative feedback to the patient, whereas there’s a reason for nonadherence, and it’s usually external,” said Sharon Rabinovitz, MD, president of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians.
 

Why won’t patients listen?

The reasons behind a patient’s nonadherence are multifaceted, but they are often driven by social determinants of health, such as transportation, poor health literacy, finances, and lack of access to pharmacies.

Other times, patients don’t want to take medicine, don’t prioritize their health, or they find the dietary and lifestyle modifications doctors suggest too hard to make or they struggle at losing weight, eating more healthfully, or cutting back on alcohol, for instance.

“When you come down to it, the big hindrance of it all is cost and the ability for the patient to be able to afford some of the things that we think they should be able to do,” said Teresa Lovins, MD, a physician in private practice Columbus, Ind., and a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Another common deterrent to treatment is undesired side effects that a patient may not want to mention.

“For example, a lot of patients who are taking antidepressants have sexual dysfunction associated with those medications,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. “If you don’t ask the right questions, you’re not going to be able to fully assess the experience the patient is having and a reason why they might not take it [the medication].”

Much nonadherence is intentional and is based on experience, belief systems, and knowledge. For example, the American Medical Association finds that patients may not understand why they need a certain treatment (and therefore dismiss it), or they may be overloaded with multiple medications, fear dependency on a drug, have a mistrust of pharmaceutical companies or the medical system as a whole, or have symptoms of depression that make taking healthy actions more difficult. In addition, patients may be unable to afford their medication, or their lack of symptoms may lead them to believe they don’t really need the prescription, as occurs with disorders such as hypertension or high cholesterol.

“In my training, we did something called Balint training, where we would get together as a group with attendings and discuss cases that were difficult from a biopsychosocial perspective and consider all the factors in the patient perspective, including family dynamics, social systems, and economic realities,” said Russell Blackwelder, MD, director of geriatric education and associate professor of family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“That training was, for me, very helpful for opening up and being more empathetic and really examining the patient’s point of view and everything that impacts them.”

Dr. Lovins agreed that it’s crucial to establish a good rapport and build mutual trust.

“If you don’t know the patient, you have a harder time asking the right questions to get to the meat of why they’re not taking their medicine or what they’re not doing to help their health,” she said. “It takes a little bit of trust on both parts to get to that question that really gets to the heart of why they’re not doing what you’re asking them to do.”
 

How to encourage adherence

Although there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for achieving general adherence or adherence to a medication regimen, some methods may increase success.

Kenneth Zweig, MD, an internist at Northern Virginia Family Practice Associates, Alexandria, said that convincing patients to make one small change that they can sustain can get the ball rolling.

“I had one patient who was very overweight and had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, back pain, insomnia, and depression, who was also drinking three to four beers a night,” Dr. Zweig said. “After a long discussion, I challenged him to stop all alcohol for 1 week. At the end of the week, he noticed that he slept better, lost some weight, had lower blood pressure, and had more energy. Once he saw the benefits of this one change, he was motivated to improve other aspects of his health as well. He improved his diet, started exercising, and lost over 50 pounds. He has persisted with these lifestyle changes ever since.”

A team-based approach may also increase treatment understanding and adherence. In one older study, patients who were assigned to team-based care, including care by pharmacists, were significantly more adherent to medication regimens. Patients were more comfortable asking questions and raising concerns when they felt their treatment plan was a collaboration between several providers and themselves.

Dr. Lovins said to always approach the patient with a positive. “Say, what can we do together to make this work? What are your questions about this medication? And try and focus on the positive things that you can change instead of leaving the patient with a negative feeling or that you’re angry with them or that you’re unhappy with their choices. Patients respond better when they are treated as part of the team.”

Fear of judgment can also be a barrier to honesty between patients and their doctors. Shame creates a reluctance to admit nonadherence. Dr. Lovins said in an interview that it’s the physician’s responsibility to create a blame-free space for patients to speak openly about their struggles with treatment and reasons for nonadherence.
 

When should you redirect care?

Ultimately, the goal is good care and treatment of disease. However, if you and your patient are at an impasse and progress is stalling or failing, it may be appropriate to encourage the patient to seek care elsewhere.

“Just like any relationship, some physician-patient relationships are just not a good fit,” said Dr. Blackwelder. And this may be the reason why the patient is nonadherent — something between the two of you doesn’t click.

While there are ethical considerations for this decision, most medical boards have guidelines on how to go about it, Dr. Blackwelder said in an interview. “In the state of South Carolina, we have to be available to provide urgent coverage for at least 30 days and notify the patient in writing that they need to find somebody else and to help them find somebody else if we can.”

Just as with care, a clear conversation is the best practice if you’re proposing a potential shift away from a physician-patient relationship. You might say: We’re not making the kind of progress I’d like to see, and I’m wondering if you think working with another doctor may help you.

“The most important thing is being very honest and transparent with the patient that you’re concerned you’re not making the appropriate strides forward,” said Dr. Rabinovitz. Then you can ask, ‘Am I the right doctor to help you reach your goals? And if not, how can I help you get to where you need to be?’ ”

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

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

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

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

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

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.

“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

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

Autoimmune disorder

Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.

Dr. Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction, and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.

“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.

The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Dr. Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”

Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome – three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Dr. Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”

The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.

Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Overall, the use of DOACs, compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio, 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.

The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.

“Our results show that use of DOACs vs. vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events – a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Dr. Bikdeli commented.

When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple-positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Dr. Bikdeli noted.

“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs. men and in people who have triple-positive antibodies and those who had double- or single-positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”   

“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double-positive or single-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.

Dr. Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision-making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision-making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs, compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”

He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single-positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.

“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double- or single-positive patient either.”

The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.

“That is the million-dollar question,” Dr. Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now – patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic [atrial fibrillaton], and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful, compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.

‘Important implications’

In an accompanying editorial,Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of the University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”

They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome – including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.

The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.

They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.

Dr. Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Dr. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism Research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Dr. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Dr. Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Sandeep Jauhar, a practicing cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwell Health, a frequent New York Times op-ed contributor, and highly regarded author of the upcoming book “My Father’s Brain: Life in the Shadow of Alzheimer’s.”

We are here today to discuss the rationale for age competency exams for practicing physicians.

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

Dr. Glatter: Your recent op-ed piece in the New York Times caught my eye. In your piece, you refer to a 2020 survey in which almost one-third of licensed doctors in the United States were 60 years of age or older, up from a quarter in 2010. You also state that, due to a 20% prevalence of mild cognitive impairment in persons older than 65, practicing physicians above this age should probably be screened by a battery of tests to ensure that their reasoning and cognitive abilities are intact. The title of the article is “How Would You Feel About a 100-Year-Old Doctor?”

How would you envision such a process? What aspects of day-to-day functioning would the exams truly be evaluating?

Dr. Jauhar: A significant number of people over 65 have measurable cognitive impairment. By cognitive impairment, we’re not talking about dementia. The best estimates are that 1 in 10 people over age 65 have dementia, and roughly 1 in 5 have what’s called MCI, or mild cognitive impairment, which is cognitive impairment out of proportion to what you’d expect from normal aging. It’s a significant issue.

The argument that I made in the op-ed is that neurocognitive assessment is important. That’s not to say that everyone over age 65 has significant cognitive impairment or that older doctors can’t practice medicine safely and effectively. They absolutely can. The question is, do we leave neurocognitive assessment to physicians who may possibly be suffering from impairment?

In dementia, people very often have impaired self-awareness, a condition called anosognosia, which is a neurological term for not being aware of your own impairment because of your impairment.

I would argue that, instead of having voluntary neurocognitive screening, it should be mandated. The question is how to do that effectively, fairly, and transparently.

One could argue a gerontocracy in medicine today, where there are so many older physicians. What do we do about that? That really is something that I think needs to be debated.

Dr. Glatter: The question I have is, if we (that is, physicians and the health care profession) don’t take care of this, someone’s going to do it for us. We need to jump on this now while we have the opportunity. The AMA has been opposed to this, except when you have reason to suspect cognitive decline or are concerned about patient safety. A mandatory age of retirement is certainly something they’re not for, and we know this.

Your argument in your op-ed piece is very well thought out, and you lay the groundwork for testing (looking at someone’s memory, coordination, processing speed, and other executive functions). Certainly, for a psychiatrist, hearing is important, and for a dermatologist, vision is important. For a surgeon, there are other issues. Based on the specialty, we must be careful to see the important aspects of functioning. I am sure you would agree with this.

Dr. Jauhar: Obviously, the hand skills that are important for ophthalmological surgery certainly aren’t required for office-based psychological counseling, for example. We have to be smart about how we assess impairment.

You describe the spectrum of actions. On the one hand, there’s mandatory retirement at the age of 65 or 70 years. We know that commercial pilots are mandated to essentially retire at 65, and air-traffic controllers must retire in their late 50s.

We know that there’s a large amount of variability in competence. There are internists in their 80s with whom I’ve worked, and I’m absolutely wowed by their experience and judgment. There are new medical resident graduates who don’t really seem to have the requisite level of competence that would make me feel comfortable to have them as my doctor or a doctor for a member of my family.

To mandate retirement, I think the AMA is absolutely right. To not call for any kind of competency testing, to me, seems equally unwise. Because at the end of the day, you have to balance individual physician needs or wants to continue practicing with patient safety. I haven’t really come across too many physicians who say, “There’s absolutely no need for a competency testing.”

We have to meet somewhere in the middle. The middle is either voluntary cognitive competency testing or mandatory. I would argue that, because we know that as the brain changes we have cognitive impairment, but we’re not always aware that we need help, mandatory testing is the way.

One other thing that you mentioned was about having the solution imposed on us. You and I are doctors. We deal with bureaucracy. We deal with poorly thought-out solutions to issues in health care that make our lives that much more difficult. I don’t want that solution imposed on us by some outside agency. I think we need to figure this out within medicine and figure out the right way of doing it.

The AMA is on board with this. They haven’t called for mandatory testing, but they have said that if testing were to occur, these are the guidelines. The guidelines are fair and equitable, not too time-consuming, transparent, and not punitive. If someone comes out and doesn’t test well, we shouldn’t force them out of the profession. We can find ways to use their experience to help train younger doctors, for example.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to segue to an area where there has been some challenge to the legality of these mandatory types of age restrictions and imposing the exams as well. There’s been a lawsuit as well by the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], on behalf of Yale. Basically, there’s been a concern that ageism is part of what’s going on. Yale now screens their providers beginning at age 70, and they have a program. UCSD [University of California, San Diego] has a program in place. Obviously, these institutions are looking at it. This is a very small part of the overall picture.

Health care systems overall, we’re talking about a fraction of them in the country are really addressing the issue of competency exams. The question is, where do we go from here? How do we get engagement or adoption and get physicians as a whole to embrace this concept?

Dr. Jauhar: The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Yale medical staff that argued that Yale’s plan to do vision testing and neurocognitive screening – there may be a physical exam also – constitutes age discrimination because it’s reserved for doctors over the age of 70. Those are the physicians who are most likely to have cognitive impairment.

We have rules already for impaired physicians who are, for example, addicted to illicit drugs or have alcohol abuse. We already have some of those measures in place. This is focused on cognitive impairment in aging physicians because cognitive impairment is an issue that arises with aging. We have to be clear about that.

Most younger physicians will not have measurable cognitive impairment that would impair their ability to practice. To force young physicians (for example, physicians in their forties) to undergo such screening, all in the name of preventing age discrimination, doesn’t strike me as being a good use of resources. They’re more likely to be false positives, as you know from Bayesian statistics. When you have low pretest probability, you’re more likely to get false positives.

How are we going to screen hundreds of thousands of physicians? We have to make a choice about the group that really is more likely to benefit from such screening. Very few hospitals are addressing this issue and it’s going to become more important.

Dr. Glatter: Surgeons have been particularly active in pushing for age-based screening. In 2016, the American College of Surgeons started making surgeons at age 65-70 undergo voluntary health and neurocognitive assessments, and encouraged physicians to disclose any concerning findings as part of their professional obligation, which is pretty impressive in my mind.

Surgeons’ skill set is quite demanding physically and technically. That the Society of Surgical Chairs took it upon themselves to institute this is pretty telling.

Dr. Jauhar: The overall society called for screening, but then in a separate survey of surgical chairs, the idea was advanced that we should have mandatory retirement. Now, I don’t particularly agree with that.

I’ve seen it, where you have the aging surgeon who was a star in their day, and no one wants to say anything when their skills have visibly degraded, and no one wants to carry that torch and tell them that they need to retire. What happens is people whisper, and unfortunately, bad outcomes have to occur before people tend to get involved, and that’s what I’m trying to prevent.

Dr. Glatter: The question is whether older physicians have worse patient outcomes. The evidence is inconclusive, but studies have shown higher mortality rates for cardiovascular surgeons in terms of the procedures that they do. On the flip side, there are also higher mortality rates for GI surgery performed by younger surgeons. It’s a mixed bag.

Dr. Jauhar: For specialized surgery, you need the accrual of a certain amount of experience. The optimal age is about 60, because they’ve seen many things and they’ve seen complications. They don’t have a hand tremor yet so they’re still functioning well, and they’ve accrued a lot of experience. We have to be smart about who we screen.

There’s a learning curve in surgery. By no means am I arguing that younger surgeons are better surgeons. I would say that there’s probably a tipping point where once you get past a certain age and physical deterioration starts to take effect, that can overshadow the accrual of cognitive and surgical experience. We have to balance those things.

I would say neurocognitive screening and vision testing are important, but exactly what do you measure? How much of a hand tremor would constitute a risk? These things have to be figured out. I just want doctors to be leading the charge here and not have this imposed by bureaucrats.

Dr. Glatter: I was reading that some doctors have had these exams administered and they can really pass cognitive aspects of the exam, but there have been nuances in the actual practicing of medicine, day-to-day functioning, which they’re not good at.

Someone made a comment that the only way to know if a doctor can do well in practice is to observe their practice and observe them taking care of patients. In other words, you can game the system and pass the cognitive exam in some form but then have a problem practicing medicine.

Dr. Jauhar: Ultimately, outcomes have to be measured. We can’t adopt such a granular approach for every aging physician. There has to be some sort of screening that maybe raises a red flag and then hospitals and department chairs need to investigate further. What are the outcomes? What are people saying in the operating room? I think the screening is just that; it’s a way of opening the door to further investigation, but it’s not a witch hunt.

I have the highest respect for older physicians, and I learn from them every day, honestly, especially in my field (cardiology), because some of the older physicians can hear and see things on physical exam that I didn’t even know existed. There’s much to be learned from them.

This is not intended to be a witch hunt or to try to get rid of older physicians – by any means. We want to avoid some of the outcomes that I read about in the New York Times comments section. It’s not fair to our patients not to do at least some sort of screening to prevent those kinds of mistakes.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to go back to data from Yale between October 2016 and January 2019, where 141 Yale clinicians who ranged in age from 69 to 92 years completed cognitive assessments. Of those, 18 clinicians, or about 13% of those tested, demonstrated cognitive deficits that were “deemed likely to impair their ability to practice medicine independently.” That’s telling. These are subtleties, but they’re important to identify. I would love to get your comment on that.

Dr. Jauhar: It’s in keeping with what we know about the proportion of our older citizens who have cognitive impairment. About 10% have dementia and about 20% have at least mild cognitive impairment. That’s in keeping with what we know, and this was a general screening.

There are certain programs, like in San Diego, for example, where physicians are referred, and so there’s a selection bias. But this was just general screening. It’s worrisome. I’m an aging physician myself. I want fairness in this process because I’m going to be assessed as well.

I just don’t really understand yet why there’s so much circling of the wagons and so much resistance. It seems like it would be good for physicians also to be removed from situations where they might get into potential litigation because of mistakes and physical or visual impairment. It seems like it’d be good for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Glatter: It’s difficult to give up your profession, change fields, or become administrative at some point, and [decide] when to make that transition. As we all get older, we’re not going to have the ability to do what we did in our 20s, 30s, and so forth.

Dr. Jauhar: Much of the resistance is coming from doctors who are used to high levels of autonomy. I’m certainly sympathetic to that because I don’t want anyone telling me how to practice. The reason this is coming up and hasn’t come up in the past is not because of loss of autonomy but because of an actual demographic change. Many physicians were trained in the 1960s, ’70s, or ’80s. They’re getting to retirement age but they’re not retiring, and we can speculate as to why that is.

In America’s educational system, doctors incur a huge amount of debt. I know physicians who are still paying off their debt and they’re in their 50s and 60s, so I’m very sympathetic to that. I’m not trying to force doctors out of practicing. I just want whoever is practicing to be competent and to practice safely. We have to figure out how to do that.

Dr. Glatter: The fact that there is a shortage of physicians forecast in the next 10-15 years makes many physicians reluctant to retire. They feel like they want to be part of that support network and we don’t want to have a dire situation, especially in the rural areas. We’re not immune from aging. We’re human beings. We all have to realize that.

Dr. Jauhar: I know that the ACC is starting to debate this issue, in part because of my op-ed. My hope is that it will start a conversation and we will institute a plan that comes from physicians and serves our patients, and doesn’t serve some cottage industry of testing or serve the needs of insurers or bureaucrats. It has to serve the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Glatter: In some random surveys that I’ve read, up to 30%-40% of physicians do support some type of age-based screening or competency assessment. The needle’s moving. It’s just not there yet. I think that wider adoption is coming.

Dr. Jauhar: Data are coming as more hospitals start to adopt these late practitioner programs. Some of the data that came out of Yale, for example, are very important. We’re going to see more published data in this area, and it will clarify what we need to do and how big the problem is.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you again for your time and for writing the op-ed because it certainly was well read and opened the eyes of not only physicians, but also the public at large. It’s a conversation that has to be had. Thank you for doing this.

Dr. Jauhar: Thanks for inviting me, Robert. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. Dr. Jauhar is director of the heart failure program, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y. Neither Dr. Glatter nor Dr. Jauhar reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The obvious first statement is that it’s neither wise nor appropriate to speculate on the specifics of Damar Hamlin’s cardiac event during a football game on Jan. 2 (including the possibility of commotio cordis) or his ongoing care. The public nature of his collapse induces intense curiosity but people with illness deserve privacy. Privacy in health care is in short supply. I disagree strongly with those who say his doctors ought to be giving public updates. That’s up to the family.

But there are important general concepts to consider about this incident. These include ...

Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone

People with structural heart disease or other chronic illnesses have a higher risk of arrhythmia, but the notion that athletes are immune from cardiac arrest is wrong. This sentence almost seems too obvious to write, but to this day, I hear clinicians express surprise that an athletic person has heart disease.

Survival turns on rapid and effective intervention

In the old days of electrophysiology, we used to test implantable cardioverter-defibrillators during an implant procedure by inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF) and watching the device convert it. Thankfully, trials have shown that this is no longer necessary for most implants.

When you induce VF In the EP lab, you learn quickly that a) it causes loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, b) rapid defibrillation restores consciousness, often without the patients knowing or remembering they passed out, and c) the failure of the shock to terminate VF results in deterioration in a matter of 1-2 minutes. Even 1 minute in VF feels so long.

Need is an appropriate word in VF treatment

Clinicians often use the verb need. As in, this patient needs this pill or this procedure. It’s rarely appropriate.

But in the case of treating VF, patients truly need rapid defibrillation. Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low because there just aren’t enough automated external defibrillators (AEDs) or people trained to use them. A study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark found that 30-day survival almost doubled (28.8% vs. 16.4%), when the nearest AED was accessible.

Bystanders must act

The public messages are simple: If a person loses consciousness in front of you, and is not breathing normally, assume it is a cardiac arrest, call 911 to get professional help, and start hands-only chest compressions. Don’t spend time checking for a pulse or trying to wake the person. If this is not a cardiac arrest, they will soon tell you to stop compressing their chest. Seconds matter.

Chest compressions are important but what is really needed is defibrillation. A crucial step in CPR is to send someone to get an AED and get the pads attached. If this is a shockable rhythm, deliver the shock. Hamlin’s collapse emphasizes the importance of the AED; without it, his survival to the hospital would have been unlikely.

Widespread preparticipation screening of young athletes remains a bad idea

Whenever cardiac arrest occurs in an athlete, in such a public way, people think about prevention. Surely it is better to prevent such an event than react to it, goes the thinking. The argument against this idea has four prongs:

The incidence of cardiac disease in a young athlete is extremely low, which sets up a situation where most “positive” tests are false positive. A false positive screening ECG or echocardiogram can create harm in multiple ways. One is the risk from downstream procedures, but worse is the inappropriate disqualification from sport. Healthwise, few harms could be greater than creating long-term fear of exercise in someone.

There is also the problem of false-negative screening tests. An ECG may be normal in the setting of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. And a normal echocardiogram does not exclude arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or other genetic causes of cardiac arrest. In a 2018 study from a major sports cardiology center in London, 6 of the 8 sudden cardiac deaths in their series were in athletes who had no detectable abnormalities on screening.

Even when disease is found, it’s not clear that prohibiting participation in sports prevents sudden death. Many previous class III recommendations against participation in sport now carry class II – may be considered – designations.

Finally, screening for any disease loses value as treatments improve. Public education regarding rapid intervention with CPR and AED use is the best treatment option. A great example is the case of Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player who suffered cardiac arrest during a match at the European Championships in 2021 and was rapidly defibrillated on the field. Therapy was so effective that he was conscious and able to wave to fans on his way out of the stadium. He has now returned to elite competition.

Proponents of screening might oppose my take by saying that National Football League players are intensely screened. But this is different from widespread screening of high school and college athletes. It might sound harsh to say, but professional teams have dualities of interests in the health of their athletes given the million-dollar contracts.

What’s more, professional teams can afford to hire expert cardiologists to perform the testing. This would likely reduce the rate of false-positive findings, compared with screening in the community setting. I often have young people referred to me because of asymptomatic bradycardia found during athletic screening – an obviously normal finding.

Conclusions

As long as there are sports, there will be athletes who suffer cardiac arrest.

We can both hope for Hamlin’s full recovery and learn lessons to help reduce the rate of death from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This mostly involves education on how to help fellow humans and a public health commitment to access to AEDs.

John Mandrola, MD, practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky. and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High-dose vitamin D led to improvement of toxic erythema of chemotherapy (TEC) within 1 to 4 days in a retrospective case series of six patients seen on an inpatient dermatology consultative service.

Currently, chemotherapy cessation, delay, or dose modification are the “only reliable methods of resolving TEC,” and supportive agents such as topical corticosteroids, topical keratolytics, and pain control are associated with variable and “relatively slow improvement involving 2 to 4 weeks of recovery after chemotherapy interruption,” Cuong V. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, wrote in a research letter.

Onset of TEC in the six patients occurred a mean of 8.5 days after chemotherapy. Vitamin D – 50,000 IU for one patient and 100,000 IU for the others – was administered a mean of 4.3 days from rash onset and again in 7 days. Triamcinolone, 0.1%, or clobetasol, 0.05%, ointments were also prescribed.

All patients experienced symptomatic improvement in pain, pruritus, or swelling within a day of the first vitamin D treatment, and improvement in redness within 1 to 4 days, the authors said. The second treatment was administered for residual symptoms.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology and director of the supportive oncodermatology clinic at George Washington University, Washington, said that supporting patients through the “expected, disabling and often treatment-limiting side effects of oncologic therapies” is an area that is “in its infancy” and is characterized by limited evidence-based approaches.

“Creativity is therefore a must,” he said, commenting on the research letter. “Practice starts with anecdote, and this is certainly an exciting finding ... I look forward to trialing this with our patients at GW.”

Five of the six patients had a hematologic condition that required induction chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and one was receiving regorafenib for treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Diagnosis of TEC was established by clinical presentation, and five of the six patients underwent a biopsy. Biopsy findings were consistent with a TEC diagnosis in three patients, and showed nonspecific perivascular dermatitis in two, the investigators reported.

Further research is needed to determine optimal dosing, “delineate safety concerns and potential role in cancer treatment, and establish whether a durable response in patients with continuous chemotherapy, such as in an outpatient setting, is possible,” they said.

Dr. Nguyen and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures.

High-dose vitamin D led to improvement of toxic erythema of chemotherapy (TEC) within 1 to 4 days in a retrospective case series of six patients seen on an inpatient dermatology consultative service.

Currently, chemotherapy cessation, delay, or dose modification are the “only reliable methods of resolving TEC,” and supportive agents such as topical corticosteroids, topical keratolytics, and pain control are associated with variable and “relatively slow improvement involving 2 to 4 weeks of recovery after chemotherapy interruption,” Cuong V. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, wrote in a research letter.

Onset of TEC in the six patients occurred a mean of 8.5 days after chemotherapy. Vitamin D – 50,000 IU for one patient and 100,000 IU for the others – was administered a mean of 4.3 days from rash onset and again in 7 days. Triamcinolone, 0.1%, or clobetasol, 0.05%, ointments were also prescribed.

All patients experienced symptomatic improvement in pain, pruritus, or swelling within a day of the first vitamin D treatment, and improvement in redness within 1 to 4 days, the authors said. The second treatment was administered for residual symptoms.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology and director of the supportive oncodermatology clinic at George Washington University, Washington, said that supporting patients through the “expected, disabling and often treatment-limiting side effects of oncologic therapies” is an area that is “in its infancy” and is characterized by limited evidence-based approaches.

“Creativity is therefore a must,” he said, commenting on the research letter. “Practice starts with anecdote, and this is certainly an exciting finding ... I look forward to trialing this with our patients at GW.”

Five of the six patients had a hematologic condition that required induction chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and one was receiving regorafenib for treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Diagnosis of TEC was established by clinical presentation, and five of the six patients underwent a biopsy. Biopsy findings were consistent with a TEC diagnosis in three patients, and showed nonspecific perivascular dermatitis in two, the investigators reported.

Further research is needed to determine optimal dosing, “delineate safety concerns and potential role in cancer treatment, and establish whether a durable response in patients with continuous chemotherapy, such as in an outpatient setting, is possible,” they said.

Dr. Nguyen and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures.

High-dose vitamin D led to improvement of toxic erythema of chemotherapy (TEC) within 1 to 4 days in a retrospective case series of six patients seen on an inpatient dermatology consultative service.

Currently, chemotherapy cessation, delay, or dose modification are the “only reliable methods of resolving TEC,” and supportive agents such as topical corticosteroids, topical keratolytics, and pain control are associated with variable and “relatively slow improvement involving 2 to 4 weeks of recovery after chemotherapy interruption,” Cuong V. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, wrote in a research letter.

Onset of TEC in the six patients occurred a mean of 8.5 days after chemotherapy. Vitamin D – 50,000 IU for one patient and 100,000 IU for the others – was administered a mean of 4.3 days from rash onset and again in 7 days. Triamcinolone, 0.1%, or clobetasol, 0.05%, ointments were also prescribed.

All patients experienced symptomatic improvement in pain, pruritus, or swelling within a day of the first vitamin D treatment, and improvement in redness within 1 to 4 days, the authors said. The second treatment was administered for residual symptoms.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology and director of the supportive oncodermatology clinic at George Washington University, Washington, said that supporting patients through the “expected, disabling and often treatment-limiting side effects of oncologic therapies” is an area that is “in its infancy” and is characterized by limited evidence-based approaches.

“Creativity is therefore a must,” he said, commenting on the research letter. “Practice starts with anecdote, and this is certainly an exciting finding ... I look forward to trialing this with our patients at GW.”

Five of the six patients had a hematologic condition that required induction chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplant, and one was receiving regorafenib for treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Diagnosis of TEC was established by clinical presentation, and five of the six patients underwent a biopsy. Biopsy findings were consistent with a TEC diagnosis in three patients, and showed nonspecific perivascular dermatitis in two, the investigators reported.

Further research is needed to determine optimal dosing, “delineate safety concerns and potential role in cancer treatment, and establish whether a durable response in patients with continuous chemotherapy, such as in an outpatient setting, is possible,” they said.

Dr. Nguyen and his coauthors reported no conflict of interest disclosures.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

A group of emergency physicians and consumer advocates in multiple states is pushing for stiffer enforcement of decades-old statutes that prohibit the ownership of medical practices by corporations not owned by licensed doctors.

Thirty-three states plus the District of Columbia have rules on their books against the so-called corporate practice of medicine. But over the years, critics say, companies have successfully sidestepped bans on owning medical practices by buying or establishing local staffing groups that are nominally owned by doctors and restricting the physicians’ authority so they have no direct control.

These laws and regulations, which started appearing nearly a century ago, were meant to fight the commercialization of medicine, maintain the independence and authority of physicians, and prioritize the doctor-patient relationship over the interests of investors and shareholders.

Those campaigning for stiffer enforcement of the laws say that physician-staffing firms owned by private equity investors are the most egregious offenders. Private equity-backed staffing companies manage a quarter of the nation’s emergency departments, according to a Raleigh, N.C.–based doctor who runs a job site for ED physicians. The two largest are Nashville, Tenn.–based Envision Healthcare, owned by investment giant KKR & Co., and Knoxville, Tenn.–based TeamHealth, owned by Blackstone.

Court filings in multiple states, including California, Missouri, Texas, and Tennessee, have called out Envision and TeamHealth for allegedly using doctor groups as straw men to sidestep corporate practice laws. But those filings have typically been in financial cases involving wrongful termination, breach of contract, and overbilling.

Now, physicians and consumer advocates around the country are anticipating a California lawsuit against Envision, scheduled to start in January 2024 in federal court. The plaintiff in the case, Milwaukee-based American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group, alleges that Envision uses shell business structures to retain de facto ownership of ED staffing groups, and it is asking the court to declare them illegal.

“We’re not asking them to pay money, and we will not accept being paid to drop the case,” said David Millstein, lead attorney for the plaintiff. “We are simply asking the court to ban this practice model.”
 

‘Possibility to reverberate throughout the country’

The physician group believes a victory would lead to a prohibition of the practice across California – and not just in ERs, but for other staff provided by Envision and TeamHealth, including in anesthesiology and hospital medicine. The California Medical Association supports the lawsuit, saying it “will shape the boundaries of California’s prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine.”

The plaintiff – along with many doctors, nurses, and consumer advocates, as well as some lawmakers – hopes that success in the case will spur regulators and prosecutors in other states to take corporate medicine prohibitions more seriously. “Any decision anywhere in the country that says the corporate ownership of a medical practice is illegal has the possibility to reverberate throughout the country, absolutely – and I hope that it would,” said Julie Mayfield, a state senator in North Carolina.

But the push to reinvigorate laws restricting the corporate practice of medicine has plenty of skeptics, who view it as an effort to return to a golden era in medicine that is long gone or may never have existed to begin with. The genie is out of the bottle, they say, noting that the profit motive has penetrated every corner of health care and that nearly 70% of physicians in the United States are now employed by corporations and hospitals.

The corporate practice of medicine doctrine has “a very interesting and not a very flattering history,” said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. “The medical profession was trying to assert its professional dominance that accrued a lot of benefits to itself in ways that were not terribly beneficial to patients or to the market.”

The California case involves Placentia-Linda Hospital in Orange County, where the plaintiff physician group lost its ED management contract to Envision. The complaint alleges that Envision uses the same business model at numerous hospitals around the state.

“Envision exercises profound and pervasive direct and indirect control and/or influence over the medical practice, making decisions which bear directly and indirectly on the practice of medicine, rendering physicians as mere employees, and diminishing physician independence and freedom from commercial interests,” according to the complaint.

Envision said the company is compliant with state laws and that its operating structure is common in the health care industry. “Legal challenges to that structure have proved meritless,” Envision wrote in an email. It added that “care decisions have and always will be between clinicians and patients.”

TeamHealth, an indirect target in the case, said its “world-class operating team” provides management services that “allow clinicians to focus on the practice of medicine and patient care through a structure commonly utilized by hospitals, health systems, and other providers across the country.”
 

State rules vary widely

State laws and regulations governing the corporate practice of medicine vary widely on multiple factors, including whether there are exceptions for nonprofit organizations, how much of doctors’ revenue outside management firms can keep, who can own the equipment, and how violations are punished. New York, Texas, and California are considered to have among the toughest restrictions, while Florida and 16 other states have none.

Kirk Ogrosky, a partner at the law firm Goodwin Procter, said this kind of management structure predates the arrival of private equity in the industry. “I would be surprised if a company that is interested in investing in this space screwed up the formation documents; it would shock me,” Mr. Ogrosky said.

Private equity–backed firms have been attracted to EDs in recent years because they are profitable and because they have been able to charge inflated amounts for out-of-network care – at least until a federal law cracked down on surprise billing. Envision and TeamHealth prioritize profits, critics say, by maximizing revenue, cutting costs, and consolidating smaller practices into ever-larger groups – to the point of regional dominance.

Envision and TeamHealth are privately owned, which makes it difficult to find reliable data on their finances and the extent of their market penetration.

Leon Adelman, MD, cofounder and CEO of Ivy Clinicians, a Raleigh, N.C.–based startup job site for emergency physicians, has spent 18 months piecing together data and found that private equity–backed staffing firms run 25% of the nation’s EDs. TeamHealth and Envision have the two largest shares, with 8.6% and 8.3%, respectively, Dr. Adelman said.

Other estimates put private equity’s penetration of ERs at closer to 40%.
 

Doctors push for investigations

So far, efforts by emergency physicians and others to challenge private equity staffing firms over their alleged violations have yielded frustrating results.

An advocacy group called Take Medicine Back, formed last year by a handful of ED physicians, sent a letter in July to North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, asking him to investigate violations of the ban on the corporate practice of medicine. And because Mr. Stein holds a senior position at the National Association of Attorneys General, the letter also asked him to take the lead in persuading his fellow AGs to “launch a multi-state investigation into the widespread lack of enforcement” of corporate practice of medicine laws.

The group’s leader, Mitchell Li, MD, said he was initially disappointed by the response he received from Mr. Stein’s office, which promised to review his request, saying it raised complex legal issues about the corporate practice of medicine in the state. But Dr. Li is now more hopeful, since he has secured a January appointment with officials in Mr. Stein’s office.

Robert McNamara, MD, a cofounder of Dr. Li’s group and chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, drafted complaints to the Texas Medical Board, along with Houston physician David Hoyer, MD, asking the board to intervene against two doctors accused of fronting for professional entities controlled by Envision and TeamHealth. In both cases, the board declined to intervene.

Dr. McNamara, who serves as the chief medical officer of the physicians’ group in the California Envision case, also filed a complaint with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, alleging that a group called Emergency Care Services of Pennsylvania PC, which was trying to contract with ED physicians of the Crozer Keystone Health System, was wholly owned by TeamHealth and serving as a shell to avoid scrutiny.

A senior official in Mr. Shapiro’s office responded, saying the complaint had been referred to two state agencies, but Dr. McNamara said he has heard nothing back in more than 3 years.
 

Differing views on private equity’s role

Proponents of private equity ownership say it has brought a lot of good to health care. Jamal Hagler, vice president of research at the American Investment Council, said private equity brings expertise to hospital systems, “whether it’s to hire new staff, grow and open up to new markets, integrate new technologies, or develop new technologies.”

But many physicians who have worked for private equity companies say their mission is not compatible with the best practice of medicine. They cite an emphasis on speed and high patient volume over safety; a preference for lesser-trained, cheaper medical providers; and treatment protocols unsuitable for certain patients.

Sean Jones, MD, an emergency physician in Asheville, N.C., said his first full-time job was at a Florida hospital, where EmCare, a subsidiary of Envision, ran the ED. Dr. Jones said EmCare, in collaboration with the hospital’s owner, pushed doctors to meet performance goals related to wait times and treatments, which were not always good for patients.

For example, if a patient came in with abnormally high heart and respiratory rates – signs of sepsis – doctors were expected to give them large amounts of fluids and antibiotics within an hour, Dr. Jones said. But those symptoms could also be caused by a panic attack or heart failure.

“You don’t want to give a patient with heart failure 2 or 3 liters of fluid, and I would get emails saying, ‘You didn’t do this,’ ” he said. “Well, no, I didn’t, because the reason they couldn’t breathe was they had too much fluid in their lungs.”

Envision said the company’s 25,000 clinicians, “like all clinicians, exercise their independent judgment to provide quality, compassionate, clinically appropriate care.”

Dr. Jones felt otherwise. “We don’t need some MBAs telling us what to do,” he said.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy heart failure

Does anyone really like it when places of business send out cards or messages for the holidays? A card from a truly small family business is one thing, but when you start getting emails from multibillion dollar corporations, it feels a bit dishonest. And that’s not even mentioning the potential blowback when things go wrong.

Petr Kratochvil

Now, you may wonder how a company could possibly mess up something so simple. “We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.” Not that difficult. Unless you’re Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England. Instead of expressing a simple expression of joy for the holiday season, Askern informed all 8,000 of its patients that they had aggressive lung cancer with metastases and they needed to fill out a DS1500 form, which entitles terminal patients to certain benefits.

It only took an hour for Askern to recognize its mistake and send a second text apologizing and adding in the appropriate season’s greetings, but obviously the damage was done. Presumably patients who were last at the doctor to have their cold treated were able to shrug off the text, or simply didn’t see it before the correction came through, but obviously many patients had concerns directly related to cancer and panicked. They called in but were by and large unable to reach anyone at the practice. Some patients close by even went to center itself to clear things up.

One patient, Mr. Carl Chegwin, raised an excellent point about the debacle: “What if that message was meant for someone, and then they are told it’s a Christmas message, then again told, ‘Oh no, that was actually meant for you?’ ” The old double backtrack into yes, you actually do have cancer has got to be a candidate for worst Christmas gift of all. Yes, even worse than socks.
 

Genes know it: You are when you eat

There’s been a lot of recent research on intermittent fasting and what it can and can’t do for one’s health. Much of it has focused on participants’ metabolic rates, but a study just published in Cell Metabolism shows how time-restricted feeding (TRF) has an impact on gene expression, the process through which genes are activated and respond to their environment by creating proteins.

Salk Institute

The research conducted by Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Salk Institute and his team involved two groups of mice, one with free access to food and the other with a daily 9-hour feeding window. Analysis of tissue samples collected from 22 organ groups revealed that nearly 80% of mouse genes responded to TRF. Interestingly, 40% of the genes in the hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pancreas, which handle hormone regulation, were affected, suggesting that TRF could potentially aid in diabetes and stress disorder management, the investigators said in a written statement.

The researchers also found that TRF aligned the circadian rhythms of multiple organs of the body, which brings sleep into the picture. “Time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes,” said Dr. Panda, whose previous research looked at TRF in firefighters, who typically work on shift schedules.

Time-restricted eating, it appears, affects gene expression throughout the body and allows interconnected organ systems to work smoothly. It’s not just about eating. Go figure.
 

This group practice reduced stress for everyone

It’s been awhile since we checked in on the good folks at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa – fictional home of the Fighting Transcendentalists [MAHARISHI RULES!] – but we just have to mention their long-term effort to reduce the national stress.

Goodboy Picture Company/E+/Getty Images

Way back in the year 2000, a group from MIU began practicing transcendental meditation. The size of the group increased over the next few years and eventually reached 1,725 in 2006. That number is important because it represents the square root of 1% of the U.S. population. When that “transition threshold was achieved,” the university explained in a written statement, “all stress indicators immediately started decreasing.”

By stress indicators they mean the U.S. stress index, the mean of eight variables – murder, rape, assault, robbery, infant mortality, drug deaths, vehicle fatalities, and child deaths by injuries – that the study investigators used to track the effectiveness of the meditation program, they said in the World Journal of Social Science.

After 2011, “when the size of the group size began to decline the rate of decrease in stress slowed and then it reversed and began to increase,” MIU reported.

Coauthor Dr. Kenneth Cavanaugh of MIU explained the process: “This study used state-of-the-art methods of time series regression analysis for eliminating potential alternative explanations due to intrinsic preexisting trends and fluctuations in the data. We carefully studied potential alternative explanations in terms of changes in economic conditions, political leadership, population demographics, and policing strategies. None of these factors could account for the results.”

Since we here at LOTME are serious professional journalists, the use of quotes means we are not making this up. Here’s one more thing in quotes: “A grant for 75 million dollars from the Howard and Alice Settle Foundation provided stipends for participants to be in the group and provided funding to bring several hundred visiting [meditation] experts from India to further augment the MIU group.”

Who needs to make up stuff? Not us.

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

Topical minoxidil is widely used to treat hair loss, but new findings suggest that a combination of oral and topical minoxidil could be effective for women with breast cancer who have experienced alopecia from anticancer treatment.

In a retrospective cohort study of women with breast cancer and anticancer therapy–induced alopecia, researchers found that combining low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) and topical minoxidil achieved better results than topical minoxidil alone and that the treatment was well tolerated. A total of 5 of the 37 patients (13.5%) in the combination therapy group achieved a complete response, defined as an improvement of alopecia severity from grade 2 to grade 1, compared with none of the 19 patients in the topical therapy–only group.

In contrast, none of the patients in the combination group experienced worsening of alopecia, compared with two (10.5%) in the topical monotherapy group.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Topical minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat androgenetic alopecia. Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating hair loss but has been receiving increased attention as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss, particularly for women. Oral minoxidil is approved for treating hypertension but at much higher doses.

An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of oral minoxidil for the treatment of female pattern hair loss, dating back to a pilot study in 2017, with promising results. The findings suggest that LDOM might be more effective than topical therapy, well tolerated, and more convenient for individuals to take.

Hypothesis generating

In a comment, Kai Johnson, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in treating patients with breast cancer at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, Columbus, noted that the study, like most small-scale retrospective studies, is hypothesis generating. However, “I’d be hesitant to broadly recommend this practice of dual therapy – oral and topical minoxidil together – until we see a placebo-controlled prospective study performed demonstrating clinically meaningful benefits for patients.”

Another factor is the study endpoints. “While there was a statistically significant benefit documented with dual therapy in this study, it’s important to have study endpoints that are more patient oriented,” Dr. Johnson said. The most important endpoint for patients would be improvements “in the actual alopecia grade, which did occur in 5 of the 37 of dual-therapy patients, versus 0 topical minoxidil patients.”

George Cotsarelis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also weighed in. He questioned whether adding the topical therapy to oral minoxidil actually improved the results. “What was missing was a study arm that used the oral alone,” he said in an interview. “So we don’t know how effective the oral therapy would be by itself and if combining it with the topical is really adding anything.”

Oral minoxidil as a treatment for hair loss is gaining traction, and it’s clear that it is effective. However, the risk of side effects is higher, he said. “The risk isn’t that high with the low dose, but it can grow hair on places other than the scalp, and that can be disconcerting.” In this study, two women who took the oral drug reported edema, and one reported headache and dizziness. Hypertrichosis was reported by five patients who received the combination.
 

Study details

In the study, Jeewoo Kang, MD, and colleagues from the Seoul National University evaluated the efficacy of LDOM in 100 patients with breast cancer who had been diagnosed with persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (pCIA) and endocrine therapy–induced alopecia (EIA) at a dermatology clinic.

They conducted an analysis of medical records, standardized clinical photographs, and trichoscopic images to evaluate the alopecia pattern, severity, treatment response, and posttreatment changes in vertex hair density and thickness.

Compared with those with EIA alone, patients with pCIA were significantly more likely to have diffuse alopecia (P < .001), and they were more likely to have more severe alopecia, although this difference was not significant (P = .058). Outcomes were evaluated for 56 patients who were treated with minoxidil (19 with topical minoxidil alone and 37 with both LDOM and topical minoxidil) and for whom clinical and trichoscopic photos were available at baseline and at the last follow-up (all patients were scheduled for follow-up at 3-month intervals).

The results showed that those treated with 1.25-5.0 mg/d of oral minoxidil and 5% topical minoxidil solution once a day had better responses (P = .002) and a higher percentage increase in hair density from baseline (P = .003), compared with those who received topical minoxidil monotherapy.

However, changes in hair thickness after treatment were not significantly different between the two groups (P = .540).

In addition to the five (13.5%) cases of hypertrichosis, two cases of edema (5.4%), and one case of headache/dizziness (2.7%) among those who received the combination, there was also one report of palpitations (2.7%). Palpitations were reported in one patient (5%) who received topical monotherapy, the only adverse event reported in this group.

Dr. Johnson noted that, at his institution, a dermatologist is conducting a clinical trial with oncology patients post chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. “She is looking at a similar question, although she is comparing oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil directly rather than in combination.” There is also an active clinical trial at Northwestern University, Chicago, of LDOM alone for patients with chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

“So there is a lot of momentum surrounding this concept, and I feel we will continue to see it come up as a possible treatment option, but more data are needed at this time before it can become standard of care,” Dr. Johnson added.

No funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Topical minoxidil is widely used to treat hair loss, but new findings suggest that a combination of oral and topical minoxidil could be effective for women with breast cancer who have experienced alopecia from anticancer treatment.

In a retrospective cohort study of women with breast cancer and anticancer therapy–induced alopecia, researchers found that combining low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) and topical minoxidil achieved better results than topical minoxidil alone and that the treatment was well tolerated. A total of 5 of the 37 patients (13.5%) in the combination therapy group achieved a complete response, defined as an improvement of alopecia severity from grade 2 to grade 1, compared with none of the 19 patients in the topical therapy–only group.

In contrast, none of the patients in the combination group experienced worsening of alopecia, compared with two (10.5%) in the topical monotherapy group.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Topical minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat androgenetic alopecia. Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating hair loss but has been receiving increased attention as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss, particularly for women. Oral minoxidil is approved for treating hypertension but at much higher doses.

An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of oral minoxidil for the treatment of female pattern hair loss, dating back to a pilot study in 2017, with promising results. The findings suggest that LDOM might be more effective than topical therapy, well tolerated, and more convenient for individuals to take.

Hypothesis generating

In a comment, Kai Johnson, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in treating patients with breast cancer at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, Columbus, noted that the study, like most small-scale retrospective studies, is hypothesis generating. However, “I’d be hesitant to broadly recommend this practice of dual therapy – oral and topical minoxidil together – until we see a placebo-controlled prospective study performed demonstrating clinically meaningful benefits for patients.”

Another factor is the study endpoints. “While there was a statistically significant benefit documented with dual therapy in this study, it’s important to have study endpoints that are more patient oriented,” Dr. Johnson said. The most important endpoint for patients would be improvements “in the actual alopecia grade, which did occur in 5 of the 37 of dual-therapy patients, versus 0 topical minoxidil patients.”

George Cotsarelis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also weighed in. He questioned whether adding the topical therapy to oral minoxidil actually improved the results. “What was missing was a study arm that used the oral alone,” he said in an interview. “So we don’t know how effective the oral therapy would be by itself and if combining it with the topical is really adding anything.”

Oral minoxidil as a treatment for hair loss is gaining traction, and it’s clear that it is effective. However, the risk of side effects is higher, he said. “The risk isn’t that high with the low dose, but it can grow hair on places other than the scalp, and that can be disconcerting.” In this study, two women who took the oral drug reported edema, and one reported headache and dizziness. Hypertrichosis was reported by five patients who received the combination.
 

Study details

In the study, Jeewoo Kang, MD, and colleagues from the Seoul National University evaluated the efficacy of LDOM in 100 patients with breast cancer who had been diagnosed with persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (pCIA) and endocrine therapy–induced alopecia (EIA) at a dermatology clinic.

They conducted an analysis of medical records, standardized clinical photographs, and trichoscopic images to evaluate the alopecia pattern, severity, treatment response, and posttreatment changes in vertex hair density and thickness.

Compared with those with EIA alone, patients with pCIA were significantly more likely to have diffuse alopecia (P < .001), and they were more likely to have more severe alopecia, although this difference was not significant (P = .058). Outcomes were evaluated for 56 patients who were treated with minoxidil (19 with topical minoxidil alone and 37 with both LDOM and topical minoxidil) and for whom clinical and trichoscopic photos were available at baseline and at the last follow-up (all patients were scheduled for follow-up at 3-month intervals).

The results showed that those treated with 1.25-5.0 mg/d of oral minoxidil and 5% topical minoxidil solution once a day had better responses (P = .002) and a higher percentage increase in hair density from baseline (P = .003), compared with those who received topical minoxidil monotherapy.

However, changes in hair thickness after treatment were not significantly different between the two groups (P = .540).

In addition to the five (13.5%) cases of hypertrichosis, two cases of edema (5.4%), and one case of headache/dizziness (2.7%) among those who received the combination, there was also one report of palpitations (2.7%). Palpitations were reported in one patient (5%) who received topical monotherapy, the only adverse event reported in this group.

Dr. Johnson noted that, at his institution, a dermatologist is conducting a clinical trial with oncology patients post chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. “She is looking at a similar question, although she is comparing oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil directly rather than in combination.” There is also an active clinical trial at Northwestern University, Chicago, of LDOM alone for patients with chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

“So there is a lot of momentum surrounding this concept, and I feel we will continue to see it come up as a possible treatment option, but more data are needed at this time before it can become standard of care,” Dr. Johnson added.

No funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Topical minoxidil is widely used to treat hair loss, but new findings suggest that a combination of oral and topical minoxidil could be effective for women with breast cancer who have experienced alopecia from anticancer treatment.

In a retrospective cohort study of women with breast cancer and anticancer therapy–induced alopecia, researchers found that combining low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) and topical minoxidil achieved better results than topical minoxidil alone and that the treatment was well tolerated. A total of 5 of the 37 patients (13.5%) in the combination therapy group achieved a complete response, defined as an improvement of alopecia severity from grade 2 to grade 1, compared with none of the 19 patients in the topical therapy–only group.

In contrast, none of the patients in the combination group experienced worsening of alopecia, compared with two (10.5%) in the topical monotherapy group.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Topical minoxidil is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat androgenetic alopecia. Oral minoxidil is not approved for treating hair loss but has been receiving increased attention as an adjunctive therapy for hair loss, particularly for women. Oral minoxidil is approved for treating hypertension but at much higher doses.

An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of oral minoxidil for the treatment of female pattern hair loss, dating back to a pilot study in 2017, with promising results. The findings suggest that LDOM might be more effective than topical therapy, well tolerated, and more convenient for individuals to take.

Hypothesis generating

In a comment, Kai Johnson, MD, a medical oncologist who specializes in treating patients with breast cancer at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute, Columbus, noted that the study, like most small-scale retrospective studies, is hypothesis generating. However, “I’d be hesitant to broadly recommend this practice of dual therapy – oral and topical minoxidil together – until we see a placebo-controlled prospective study performed demonstrating clinically meaningful benefits for patients.”

Another factor is the study endpoints. “While there was a statistically significant benefit documented with dual therapy in this study, it’s important to have study endpoints that are more patient oriented,” Dr. Johnson said. The most important endpoint for patients would be improvements “in the actual alopecia grade, which did occur in 5 of the 37 of dual-therapy patients, versus 0 topical minoxidil patients.”

George Cotsarelis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, also weighed in. He questioned whether adding the topical therapy to oral minoxidil actually improved the results. “What was missing was a study arm that used the oral alone,” he said in an interview. “So we don’t know how effective the oral therapy would be by itself and if combining it with the topical is really adding anything.”

Oral minoxidil as a treatment for hair loss is gaining traction, and it’s clear that it is effective. However, the risk of side effects is higher, he said. “The risk isn’t that high with the low dose, but it can grow hair on places other than the scalp, and that can be disconcerting.” In this study, two women who took the oral drug reported edema, and one reported headache and dizziness. Hypertrichosis was reported by five patients who received the combination.
 

Study details

In the study, Jeewoo Kang, MD, and colleagues from the Seoul National University evaluated the efficacy of LDOM in 100 patients with breast cancer who had been diagnosed with persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (pCIA) and endocrine therapy–induced alopecia (EIA) at a dermatology clinic.

They conducted an analysis of medical records, standardized clinical photographs, and trichoscopic images to evaluate the alopecia pattern, severity, treatment response, and posttreatment changes in vertex hair density and thickness.

Compared with those with EIA alone, patients with pCIA were significantly more likely to have diffuse alopecia (P < .001), and they were more likely to have more severe alopecia, although this difference was not significant (P = .058). Outcomes were evaluated for 56 patients who were treated with minoxidil (19 with topical minoxidil alone and 37 with both LDOM and topical minoxidil) and for whom clinical and trichoscopic photos were available at baseline and at the last follow-up (all patients were scheduled for follow-up at 3-month intervals).

The results showed that those treated with 1.25-5.0 mg/d of oral minoxidil and 5% topical minoxidil solution once a day had better responses (P = .002) and a higher percentage increase in hair density from baseline (P = .003), compared with those who received topical minoxidil monotherapy.

However, changes in hair thickness after treatment were not significantly different between the two groups (P = .540).

In addition to the five (13.5%) cases of hypertrichosis, two cases of edema (5.4%), and one case of headache/dizziness (2.7%) among those who received the combination, there was also one report of palpitations (2.7%). Palpitations were reported in one patient (5%) who received topical monotherapy, the only adverse event reported in this group.

Dr. Johnson noted that, at his institution, a dermatologist is conducting a clinical trial with oncology patients post chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. “She is looking at a similar question, although she is comparing oral minoxidil to topical minoxidil directly rather than in combination.” There is also an active clinical trial at Northwestern University, Chicago, of LDOM alone for patients with chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

“So there is a lot of momentum surrounding this concept, and I feel we will continue to see it come up as a possible treatment option, but more data are needed at this time before it can become standard of care,” Dr. Johnson added.

No funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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