User login
-
Looking for a healthy meat substitute? Consider the potato
Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet
It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.
In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.
For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.
The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore
It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.
“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.
The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”
We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:
- K-pop (already taken)
- Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
- Trumpox
- Pox the magic dragon
- Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
- Hockey pox
- Mission mpoxible
- Jurassic Pox
- The pox that refreshes
- Debbie
Feet catch what the ears miss
The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.
For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.
Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.
“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.
Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
Uncle Leonid wants you
Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.
Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.
Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”
It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.
Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet
It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.
In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.
For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.
The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore
It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.
“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.
The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”
We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:
- K-pop (already taken)
- Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
- Trumpox
- Pox the magic dragon
- Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
- Hockey pox
- Mission mpoxible
- Jurassic Pox
- The pox that refreshes
- Debbie
Feet catch what the ears miss
The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.
For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.
Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.
“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.
Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
Uncle Leonid wants you
Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.
Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.
Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”
It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.
Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet
It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.
In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.
For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.
The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore
It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.
“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.
The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”
We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:
- K-pop (already taken)
- Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
- Trumpox
- Pox the magic dragon
- Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
- Hockey pox
- Mission mpoxible
- Jurassic Pox
- The pox that refreshes
- Debbie
Feet catch what the ears miss
The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.
For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.
Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.
“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.
Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
Uncle Leonid wants you
Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.
Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.
Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”
It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.
Don’t call me ‘Dr.,’ say some physicians – but most prefer the title
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.
“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”
Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”
published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.
“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”
To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.
Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”
Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.
The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
Physician preferences vary
Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”
This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.
Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”
He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”
Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”
When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.
Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”
Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”
Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
How to handle informality
If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”
This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”
Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”
Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”
In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.
Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.
Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Skinny-label biosimilars provide substantial savings to Medicare
Recent court rulings could put such saving under threat
Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.
The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.
In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.
The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.
In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.
The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.
“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.
“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”
The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”
He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
Recent court rulings could put such saving under threat
Recent court rulings could put such saving under threat
Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.
The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.
In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.
The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.
In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.
The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.
“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.
“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”
The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”
He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.
The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.
In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.
The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.
In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.
The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.
“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.
“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”
The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”
He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
The right indoor relative humidity could ward off COVID
The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19.
Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.
Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.
The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public.
“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.
The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said.
“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.
Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.
“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19.
Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.
Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.
The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public.
“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.
The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said.
“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.
Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.
“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19.
Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.
Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.
The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public.
“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.
The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said.
“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.
Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.
“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
FDA approves first gene therapy for hemophilia B
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
“Gene therapy for hemophilia has been on the horizon for more than 2 decades. Despite advancements in the treatment of hemophilia, the prevention and treatment of bleeding episodes can adversely impact individuals’ quality of life,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval provides a new treatment option for patients with hemophilia B and represents important progress in the development of innovative therapies for those experiencing a high burden of disease associated with this form of hemophilia.”
Hemophilia B is caused by a deficiency in clotting factor IX attributable to a faulty gene. The newly approved IV infusion delivers a functional gene to liver cells via an adeno-associated virus that instructs them to make the clotting factor. The genetic instructions remain in the cell but aren’t incorporated into the patient’s own DNA, according to a press release from maker CSL Behring.
The gene therapy will cost $3.5 million, making it the most expensive treatment to date -- more than Bluebird's recently approved gene therapies. A recent analysis from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said charging $2.93-$2.96 million would be justified because etranacogene dezaparvovec would offset the need for ongoing factor IX replacement, which can top $20 million over a lifetime.
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label HOPE-B trial in 54 men who relied on factor IX replacement therapy; most patients with hemophilia B are male.
Over the 18 months after infusion, their adjusted annualized bleeding rate fell 64% compared with baseline (P = .0002), and factor IX–treated bleeds fell 77% (P < .0001); 98% of subjects treated with a full dose of etranacogene dezaparvovec discontinued factor IX prophylaxis.
Durability of the effect remains a concern, but data have been reassuring, with subjects having a mean factor IX activity of 39 IU/dL at 6 months – 39% of normal – and 36.9 IU/dL at 18 months, about 37% of normal. There’s been no sign so far of patients developing inhibitors against the infusion.
Adverse events were common but largely mild and included headache and influenza-like illness, both in 13% of subjects. Nine patients needed steroids for liver enzyme elevations.
The trial was temporarily halted due to a case of liver cancer, but it was ultimately deemed not to be related to treatment, based on molecular tumor characterization and vector integration analysis. A death in the trial was also not considered treatment related.
Other gene therapies are in the pipeline for hemophilia, including valoctocogene roxaparvovec (Roctavian, BioMarin) for hemophilia A. FDA’s approval decision is expected in March 2023.
This article was updated 11/23/22.
Correction, 11/23/22: The brand name Hemgenix was misstated in an earlier version of this article.
Blenrep for multiple myeloma withdrawn from U.S. market
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A drug used in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) is in the process of being pulled off the U.S. market by its manufacturer.
The drug is belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep), an antibody drug conjugate that targets B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA).
The manufacturer, GSK, announced that it has started the process of withdrawing this drug from the market at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This request follows disappointing results from a large confirmatory trial, known as DREAMM-3, in which the drug failed to meet the primary endpoint of showing an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS).
The company was obliged to carry out this confirmatory trial after the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the drug in August 2020.
The accelerated approval was based on response data, and it was dependent on later trials’ confirming a clinical benefit. In this case, those trials did not confirm a clinical benefit.
“We respect the Agency’s approach to the accelerated approval regulations and associated process,” commented the GSK Chief Medical Officer Sabine Luik.
The company will continue to “work with the U.S. FDA on a path forward for this important treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma.”
Further clinical trials in the DREAMM program are still underway. Results from the DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8 trials are expected in early 2023.
The company had high hopes for the drug when it was launched. At that time, belanatamab mafodotin-blmf was the only drug on the market that targeted BCMA, and so it was the first drug in its class.
However, it is no longer unique. In the 2 years that it has been available, several other products that target BCMA have been launched for use in the treatment of multiple myeloma. These include the two chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), as well as the bispecific antibody teclistamab (Tecvayli).
For relapsed/refractory disease
Belantamab mafodotin-blmf was approved for use in patients with RRMM who had already undergone treatment with one of the three major classes of drugs, namely, an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and a CD-38 monoclonal antibody.
Patients who are currently taking the drug and would like to continue doing so will have the option to enroll in a compassionate use program to retain their access to treatment, the company said.
“GSK continues to believe, based on the totality of data available from the DREAMM (DRiving Excellence in Approaches to Multiple Myeloma) development program, that the benefit-risk profile of belantamab mafodotin remains favorable in this hard-to-treat RRMM patient population. Patients responding to belantamab mafodotin experienced durable clinical benefit, and safety remains consistent with the known safety profile,” the company said.
Details of DREAMM-3 results
DREAMM-3 was a phase 3 trial that compared single-agent belantamab mafodotin to pomalidomide (Pomalyst) in combination with low-dose dexamethasone (PomDex) for patients with RRMM.
The results for the primary endpoint of PFS did not reach statistical significance: median PFS was 11.2 vs. 7 months with PomDex (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.47).
At the time of the primary analysis, the overall survival (OS) data had only achieved 37.5% overall maturity. The median OS was 21.2 vs. 21.1 months with PomDex (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.77-1.68).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nurse practitioner fined $20k for advertising herself as ‘Doctor Sarah’
Last month, the San Luis Obispo County, California, District Attorney Dan Dow filed a complaint against Sarah Erny, RN, NP, citing unfair business practices and unprofessional conduct.
According to court documents, California’s Medical Practice Act does not permit individuals to refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”
Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.
In addition to the fine, Ms. Erny agreed to refrain from referring to herself as a doctor in her practice and on social media. She has already deleted her Twitter account.
The case underscores tensions between physicians fighting to preserve their scope of practice and the allied professionals that U.S. lawmakers increasingly see as a less expensive way to improve access to health care.
The American Medical Association and specialty groups strongly oppose a new bill, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act, that would expand the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Court records show that Ms. Erny earned a doctor of nursing practice (DNP) degree from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and that she met the state requirements to obtain licensure as a registered nurse and nurse practitioner. In 2018, she opened a practice in Arroyo Grande, California, called Holistic Women’s Healing, where she provided medical services and drug supplements to patients.
She also entered a collaborative agreement with ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, for approximately 3 years. Dr. Moore’s medical practice was in another county and state, and the physician returned every 2 to 3 months to review a portion of Ms. Erny’s patient files.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore terminated the collaborative agreement in March, according to court documents.
However, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny regularly referred to herself as “Dr. Sarah” or “Dr. Sarah Erny” in her online advertising and social media accounts. Her patients “were so proud of her” that they called her doctor, and her supervising physician instructed staff to do the same.
Mr. Dow said Ms. Erny did not clearly advise the public that she was not a medical doctor and failed to identify her supervising physician. “Simply put, there is a great need for health care providers to state their level of training and licensing clearly and honestly in all of their advertising and marketing materials,” he said in a press release.
In California, nurse practitioners who have been certified by the Board of Registered Nursing may use the following titles: Advanced Practice Registered Nurse; Certified Nurse Practitioner; APRN-CNP; RN and NP; or a combination of other letters or words to identify specialization, such as adult nurse practitioner, pediatric nurse practitioner, obstetrical-gynecological nurse practitioner, and family nurse practitioner.
As educational requirements shift for advanced practice clinicians, similar cases will likely emerge, said Grant Martsolf, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing.
“Scope of practice is governed by states, [so they] will have to figure [it] out as more professional disciplines move to clinical doctorates as the entry to practice. Pharma, [physical therapy], and [occupational therapy] have already done this, and advanced practice nursing is on its way. [Certified registered nurse anesthetists] are already required to get a DNP to sit for certification,” he said.
More guidance is needed, especially when considering other professions like dentists, clinical psychologists, and individuals with clinical or research doctorates who often call themselves doctors, Dr. Martsolf said.
“It seems that the honorific of ‘Dr.’ emerges from the degree, not from being a physician or surgeon,” he said.
Beyond the false advertising, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny did not file a fictitious business name statement for 2020 and 2021 – a requirement under the California Business and Professions Code to identify who is operating the business.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last month, the San Luis Obispo County, California, District Attorney Dan Dow filed a complaint against Sarah Erny, RN, NP, citing unfair business practices and unprofessional conduct.
According to court documents, California’s Medical Practice Act does not permit individuals to refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”
Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.
In addition to the fine, Ms. Erny agreed to refrain from referring to herself as a doctor in her practice and on social media. She has already deleted her Twitter account.
The case underscores tensions between physicians fighting to preserve their scope of practice and the allied professionals that U.S. lawmakers increasingly see as a less expensive way to improve access to health care.
The American Medical Association and specialty groups strongly oppose a new bill, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act, that would expand the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Court records show that Ms. Erny earned a doctor of nursing practice (DNP) degree from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and that she met the state requirements to obtain licensure as a registered nurse and nurse practitioner. In 2018, she opened a practice in Arroyo Grande, California, called Holistic Women’s Healing, where she provided medical services and drug supplements to patients.
She also entered a collaborative agreement with ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, for approximately 3 years. Dr. Moore’s medical practice was in another county and state, and the physician returned every 2 to 3 months to review a portion of Ms. Erny’s patient files.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore terminated the collaborative agreement in March, according to court documents.
However, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny regularly referred to herself as “Dr. Sarah” or “Dr. Sarah Erny” in her online advertising and social media accounts. Her patients “were so proud of her” that they called her doctor, and her supervising physician instructed staff to do the same.
Mr. Dow said Ms. Erny did not clearly advise the public that she was not a medical doctor and failed to identify her supervising physician. “Simply put, there is a great need for health care providers to state their level of training and licensing clearly and honestly in all of their advertising and marketing materials,” he said in a press release.
In California, nurse practitioners who have been certified by the Board of Registered Nursing may use the following titles: Advanced Practice Registered Nurse; Certified Nurse Practitioner; APRN-CNP; RN and NP; or a combination of other letters or words to identify specialization, such as adult nurse practitioner, pediatric nurse practitioner, obstetrical-gynecological nurse practitioner, and family nurse practitioner.
As educational requirements shift for advanced practice clinicians, similar cases will likely emerge, said Grant Martsolf, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing.
“Scope of practice is governed by states, [so they] will have to figure [it] out as more professional disciplines move to clinical doctorates as the entry to practice. Pharma, [physical therapy], and [occupational therapy] have already done this, and advanced practice nursing is on its way. [Certified registered nurse anesthetists] are already required to get a DNP to sit for certification,” he said.
More guidance is needed, especially when considering other professions like dentists, clinical psychologists, and individuals with clinical or research doctorates who often call themselves doctors, Dr. Martsolf said.
“It seems that the honorific of ‘Dr.’ emerges from the degree, not from being a physician or surgeon,” he said.
Beyond the false advertising, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny did not file a fictitious business name statement for 2020 and 2021 – a requirement under the California Business and Professions Code to identify who is operating the business.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Last month, the San Luis Obispo County, California, District Attorney Dan Dow filed a complaint against Sarah Erny, RN, NP, citing unfair business practices and unprofessional conduct.
According to court documents, California’s Medical Practice Act does not permit individuals to refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”
Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.
In addition to the fine, Ms. Erny agreed to refrain from referring to herself as a doctor in her practice and on social media. She has already deleted her Twitter account.
The case underscores tensions between physicians fighting to preserve their scope of practice and the allied professionals that U.S. lawmakers increasingly see as a less expensive way to improve access to health care.
The American Medical Association and specialty groups strongly oppose a new bill, the Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act, that would expand the scope of practice for nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Court records show that Ms. Erny earned a doctor of nursing practice (DNP) degree from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and that she met the state requirements to obtain licensure as a registered nurse and nurse practitioner. In 2018, she opened a practice in Arroyo Grande, California, called Holistic Women’s Healing, where she provided medical services and drug supplements to patients.
She also entered a collaborative agreement with ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, for approximately 3 years. Dr. Moore’s medical practice was in another county and state, and the physician returned every 2 to 3 months to review a portion of Ms. Erny’s patient files.
Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore terminated the collaborative agreement in March, according to court documents.
However, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny regularly referred to herself as “Dr. Sarah” or “Dr. Sarah Erny” in her online advertising and social media accounts. Her patients “were so proud of her” that they called her doctor, and her supervising physician instructed staff to do the same.
Mr. Dow said Ms. Erny did not clearly advise the public that she was not a medical doctor and failed to identify her supervising physician. “Simply put, there is a great need for health care providers to state their level of training and licensing clearly and honestly in all of their advertising and marketing materials,” he said in a press release.
In California, nurse practitioners who have been certified by the Board of Registered Nursing may use the following titles: Advanced Practice Registered Nurse; Certified Nurse Practitioner; APRN-CNP; RN and NP; or a combination of other letters or words to identify specialization, such as adult nurse practitioner, pediatric nurse practitioner, obstetrical-gynecological nurse practitioner, and family nurse practitioner.
As educational requirements shift for advanced practice clinicians, similar cases will likely emerge, said Grant Martsolf, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing.
“Scope of practice is governed by states, [so they] will have to figure [it] out as more professional disciplines move to clinical doctorates as the entry to practice. Pharma, [physical therapy], and [occupational therapy] have already done this, and advanced practice nursing is on its way. [Certified registered nurse anesthetists] are already required to get a DNP to sit for certification,” he said.
More guidance is needed, especially when considering other professions like dentists, clinical psychologists, and individuals with clinical or research doctorates who often call themselves doctors, Dr. Martsolf said.
“It seems that the honorific of ‘Dr.’ emerges from the degree, not from being a physician or surgeon,” he said.
Beyond the false advertising, Mr. Dow alleged that Ms. Erny did not file a fictitious business name statement for 2020 and 2021 – a requirement under the California Business and Professions Code to identify who is operating the business.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Blame MCL, not transplantation, for late effects?
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Hypertension linked to risk of severe COVID
U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.
Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.
They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”
To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.
Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.
In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct
The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.
Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”
The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
J-shaped relationship
Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.
There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.
In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).
The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”
They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.
The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”
Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.
The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.
There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed
Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.
They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.
“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.
“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.
The authors have declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.
Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.
They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”
To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.
Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.
In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct
The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.
Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”
The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
J-shaped relationship
Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.
There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.
In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).
The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”
They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.
The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”
Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.
The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.
There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed
Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.
They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.
“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.
“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.
The authors have declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.
Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.
They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”
To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.
Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.
In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct
The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.
Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”
The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
J-shaped relationship
Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.
There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.
In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).
The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”
They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.
The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”
Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.
The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.
There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed
Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.
They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.
“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.
“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.
The authors have declared no competing interests.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM PLOS ONE
Medical school culinary medicine programs grow despite limited funding
The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.
About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.
To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.
Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.
The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.
As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.
One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.
“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”
Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
Culinary medicine programs catch on
Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.
Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.
Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.
Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.
Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.
As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.
The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.
Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
Course correction
Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.
Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.
“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.
Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.
But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.
“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”
During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.
Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.
Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.
“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
A dietitian’s involvement
Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.
When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.
That’s important as students go on to become doctors.
“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”
Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
Popular with students
While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.
“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”
Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.
As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.
His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.
They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.
The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.
Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.
“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs
When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.
In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.
Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.
It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.
Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.
“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.
Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.
About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.
To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.
Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.
The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.
As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.
One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.
“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”
Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
Culinary medicine programs catch on
Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.
Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.
Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.
Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.
Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.
As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.
The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.
Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
Course correction
Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.
Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.
“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.
Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.
But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.
“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”
During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.
Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.
Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.
“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
A dietitian’s involvement
Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.
When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.
That’s important as students go on to become doctors.
“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”
Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
Popular with students
While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.
“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”
Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.
As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.
His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.
They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.
The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.
Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.
“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs
When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.
In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.
Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.
It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.
Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.
“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.
Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
The way he sees it, the stakes couldn’t be higher. He believes doctors need to see food as medicine to be able to stem the tide of chronic disease.
About 6 in 10 adults in the United States live with chronic diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, costing $4.1 trillion in annual health care costs. Adult obesity rates are rising, as are obesity-related conditions such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.
To turn the tide, Dr. Marvasti created a culinary medicine program in 2020 in collaboration with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and local chefs.
Dr. Marvasti, who is board certified in family medicine, graduated from the University of Arizona, Phoenix, where he serves as the director of the medical school’s Culinary Medicine Program.
The program offers an elective course for third- and fourth-year medical students, which introduces the evidence-based field of culinary medicine. Dr Marvasti’s goal is for the course to teach students how to use this science and the joy of cooking to improve long-term health outcomes for their patients.
As part of Dr. Marvasti’s program, students learn cooking fundamentals through chef demonstrations and hands-on practice – to teach students how food can be used to prevent and treat many chronic diseases.
One of the dishes students learn to make includes a quinoa salad made with cucumber, onion, bell peppers, corn, cherry tomatoes, beans, garlic, olive oil, and lemon juice. Another recipe includes a healthier take on dessert: Dark chocolate mousse made with three large, ripe avocados, dark chocolate powder, three tablespoons of agave or maple, coconut cream, nondairy milk, salt, and vanilla. Dr. Marvasti and his team are set to build out the existing program to develop additional resources for medically underserved and rural communities in Arizona, according to a statement from the university. These plans will be funded by a $750,000 grant from Novo Nordisk.
“We’re going to develop an open education curriculum to share, so it’s open access to everyone,” said Dr. Marvasti, who is also director of Public Health, Prevention and Health Promotion and an associate professor at the university. “It can be adaptable at the undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate level.”
Dr. Marvasti and his colleagues at the University of Arizona aren’t alone. In fact, culinary medicine programs are sprouting some serious legs.
Culinary medicine programs catch on
Jaclyn Albin, MD, CCMS, an associate professor in the departments of internal medicine and pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, conducted a scoping review of the literature on culinary medicine programs for medical students.* Her purpose was to learn how the programs were structured and how they assessed student knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrition counseling for patients.
Dr. Albin and her colleagues performed an initial literature search between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, of papers published between Jan. 1, 2012, and Aug. 1, 2020 – excluding some newer programs such as the one at the University of Arizona. The results of their research were published in Academic Medicine.
Ultimately, the authors identified and examined 34 programs offering medical student–focused culinary medicine courses.
Program instructors typically included a team of physicians, dietitians, chefs, and other professionals, the study found.
Most program participants exclusively taught medical students, though the training years of participants varied among programs, and they included first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year students. Some programs allowed students from outside their respective medical school to participate in the trainings.
As for the formats of the program, most included cohorts of 10-20 students attending multiple 2- to 3-hour sessions over the course of several months. The University of Alabama at Birmingham offers one of the longest courses, which spans 4-5 months, according to the paper. In contrast, the University of Rochester (N.Y.) program offers only a 1-day lab divided into four sessions, with each session lasting about 2 hours.
The culinary medicine programs’ course sessions tended to include a 10- to 30-minute didactic session involving videos, research articles, culinary theories, and other lectures, a 60- to 90-minute hands-on cooking session, and a 30-minute discussion around nutrition, culture, and patient care.
Most programs used pre- and post-program surveys to evaluate outcomes, though results varied between programs, according to the study. While each program evaluation had different metrics, the surveys generally revealed students felt more confident discussing dietary interventions with patients and in their own cooking skills following completion.
Course correction
Most of those programs are unfunded or minimally funded, Dr. Albin said.
Her own program, which is immensely popular with medical students, is one she teaches on a volunteer basis.
“I do this for free, in the evenings, because I believe in it,” she said.
Medical school education real estate is limited, so convincing medical schools to add something to the curriculum is difficult, Dr. Albin noted.
But it’s worth it, she said, because nutrition is the underpinning of so many diseases.
“Food is the top risk factor for early death in the U.S.,” Dr. Albin said. “I like to say that five times in a row. People have not digested it.”
During her culinary medicine courses, she also asks her medical students: “Who is comfortable in the kitchen?” Some sheepishly raise their hands, she said. Some don’t. Many don’t know anything about cooking.
Then she teaches students about healthy food and how to make it. As part of her program, medical students are given a pantry starter kit with olive oil and a variety of spices to take home and use.
Some recipes Dr. Albin teaches includes mango chili shrimp salad with lime vinaigrette, eggplant sliders, yellow vegetable curry, and strawberry banana chia pudding.
“If you figure out how to do it for your own busy, everyday life, you are now empowered to tell someone else about it,” she said.
A dietitian’s involvement
Milette Siler, RD, LD, CCMS, works with Dr. Albin to educate medical students and patients about food as medicine. A significant chunk of her job involves teaching future doctors what dietitians do.
When the class starts, many students don’t know two of the five basic things dietitians do, Ms. Siler said. By the end of the class, all students know what a dietitian does.
That’s important as students go on to become doctors.
“For us to remove barriers to care, we have to acknowledge most patients’ entry into health care is their physician,” she said. “The dietitian is often a referral. Doctors need to know enough to do no harm.”
Clinicians are often siloed, she said, and the key to better serving patients is partnership, transparency, and relationships. “I think everybody is at a point where everyone is saying what we’re doing isn’t working,” she said. “The American public deserves better, physicians deserve better, and clinicians deserve better.”
Popular with students
While the old guard has been slow to embrace the shift, her students have helped drive the growth of the culinary medicine field, Dr. Albin said.
“They are not settling for the inadequacy that somehow the rest of us did,” she continued. “I’m so hopeful for the future of the health system. We have a generation of people who will not stand for neglecting the most vital elements.”
Lyndon Bui, a second-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, is an example of one of these people.
As a member of a culinary medicine interest group on campus, he said, he has learned a lot about the importance of diet for long-term health. This has given him confidence to talk about food and nutrition.
His group does cooking demos at the Phoenix Farmers Market using food from various local vendors. They usually make a salad from local greens and cook seasonal veggies in a stir fry, he said.
They’ve previously made salad with microgreens – young seedlings of edible vegetables and herbs – and pomegranate seeds with a honey mustard vinaigrette, eggplant or cucumber, and hummus on pita bread, as well as almond butter and honey sandwiches, according to the university.
The group also talks with people in the community, answers questions, and learns about community needs.
Mr. Bui’s participation in this group has helped him cultivate a passion for community outreach that he wants to incorporate into his career.
“I feel like I have the knowledge to provide better advice to patients,” he said. “Knowing all these things about food, I feel more comfortable talking about it and more inclined to refer to a dietitian when maybe I wouldn’t have before.”
Family physician applauds culinary medicine programs
When Angie Neison, MD, CCMS, went to medical school, she was surprised there wasn’t more education on nutrition.
In fact, on average, physicians receive less than 20 hours of nutrition education, according to the University of Arizona.
Now 15 years into her career as a family physician, Dr. Neison says nutrition is a huge part of her practice. She spends time working to bust myths about nutrition for her patients – including that healthy food is boring and bland, that making it is time consuming, and that healthy food is expensive. She also spends time teaching aspects of culinary medicine to her colleagues – many of whom are well into their careers – so they can better serve their patients.
It’s worth it to spend time learning about nutrition, she said, whether that’s as a medical student in a culinary medicine program or a practicing physician taking additional courses.
Nutrition education in medical school hasn’t been a priority, she said, maybe because there is so much to learn, or maybe because there is no money to be made in prevention.
“If doctors learn it, they are able to better guide patients,” she said.
Correction, 11/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Albin's institution.
FROM ACADEMIC MEDICINE
