Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antihypertensive medications that stimulate rather than inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors can lower the rate of dementia among new users of these medications, new research suggests.

Results from a cohort study of more than 57,000 older Medicare beneficiaries showed that the initiation of antihypertensives that stimulate the receptors was linked to a 16% lower risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) and an 18% lower risk for vascular dementia compared with those that inhibit the receptors.

“Achieving appropriate blood pressure control is essential for maximizing brain health, and this promising research suggests certain antihypertensives could yield brain benefit compared to others,” lead study author Zachary A. Marcum, PharmD, PhD, associate professor, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Medicare beneficiaries

Previous observational studies showed that antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, in comparison with those that don’t, were associated with lower rates of dementia. However, those studies included individuals with prevalent hypertension and were relatively small.

The new retrospective cohort study included a random sample of 57,773 Medicare beneficiaries aged at least 65 years with new-onset hypertension. The mean age of participants was 73.8 years, 62.9% were women, and 86.9% were White.

Over the course of the study, some participants filled at least one prescription for a stimulating angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4, such as angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.

Others participants filled a prescription for an inhibiting type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

“All these medications lower blood pressure, but they do it in different ways,” said Dr. Marcum.

The researchers were interested in the varying activity of these drugs at the type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.

For each 30-day interval, they categorized beneficiaries into four groups: a stimulating medication group (n = 4,879) consisting of individuals mostly taking stimulating antihypertensives; an inhibiting medication group (n = 10,303) that mostly included individuals prescribed this type of antihypertensive; a mixed group (n = 2,179) that included a combination of the first two classifications; and a nonuser group (n = 40,413) of individuals who were not using either type of drug.

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of ADRD. The secondary outcome was time to first occurrence of vascular dementia.

Researchers controlled for cardiovascular risk factors and sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and receipt of low-income subsidy.
 

Unanswered questions

After adjustments, results showed that initiation of an antihypertensive medication regimen that exclusively stimulates, rather than inhibits, type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with a 16% lower risk for incident ADRD over a follow-up of just under 7 years (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90; P < .001).

The mixed regimen was also associated with statistically significant (P = .001) reduced odds of ADRD compared with the inhibiting medications.

As for vascular dementia, use of stimulating vs. inhibiting medications was associated with an 18% lower risk (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P = .02).

Again, use of the mixed regimen was associated with reduced risk of vascular dementia compared with the inhibiting medications (P = .03).

A variety of potential mechanisms might explain the superiority of stimulating agents when it comes to dementia risk, said Dr. Marcum. These could include, for example, increased blood flow to the brain and reduced amyloid.

“But more mechanistic work is needed as well as evaluation of dose responses, because that’s not something we looked at in this study,” Dr. Marcum said. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”
 

Stimulators instead of inhibitors?

The results of the current analysis come on the heels of some previous work showing the benefits of lowering blood pressure. For example, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg significantly reduces risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases.

But in contrast to previous research, the current study included only beneficiaries with incident hypertension and new use of antihypertensive medications, and it adjusted for time-varying confounding.

Prescribing stimulating instead of inhibiting treatments could make a difference at the population level, Dr. Marcum noted.

“If we could shift the prescribing a little bit from inhibiting to stimulating, that could possibly reduce dementia risk,” he said.

However, “we’re not suggesting [that all patients] have their regimen switched,” he added.

That’s because inhibiting medications still have an important place in the antihypertensive treatment armamentarium, Dr. Marcum noted. As an example, beta-blockers are used post heart attack.

As well, factors such as cost and side effects should be taken into consideration when prescribing an antihypertensive drug.

The new results could be used to set up a comparison in a future randomized controlled trial that would provide the strongest evidence for estimating causal effects of treatments, said Dr. Marcum.
 

‘More convincing’

Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is “more convincing” than previous related research, as it has a larger sample size and a longer follow-up.

“And the exquisite statistical analysis gives more robustness, more solidity, to the hypothesis that drugs that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors might be protective for dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego, who was not involved with the research.

However, he noted that the retrospective study had some limitations, including the underdiagnosis of dementia. “The diagnosis of dementia is, honestly, very poorly done in the clinical setting,” he said.

As well, the study could be subject to “confounding by indication,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said. “There could be a third variable, another confounding factor, that’s responsible both for the dementia and for the prescription of these drugs,” he added.

For example, he noted that comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and heart failure might increase the risk of dementia.

He agreed with the investigators that a randomized clinical trial would address these limitations. “All comorbidities would be equally shared” in the randomized groups, and all participants would be given “a specific test for dementia at the same time,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

Still, he noted that the new results are in keeping with hypertension guidelines that recommend stimulating drugs.

“This trial definitely shows that the current hypertension guidelines are good treatment for our patients, not only to control blood pressure and not only to prevent infarction to prevent stroke but also to prevent dementia,” said Dr. Santos-Gallego.

Also commenting for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the new data provide “clarity” on why previous research had differing results on the effect of antihypertensives on cognition.

Among the caveats of this new analysis is that “it’s unclear if the demographics in this study are fully representative of Medicare beneficiaries,” said Dr. Snyder.

She, too, said a clinical trial is important “to understand if there is a preventative and/or treatment potential in the medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors.”

The study received funding from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Marcum and Dr. Santos-Gallego have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Study results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Study results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Study results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation

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

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

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

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

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Reporting on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) highlights from the American Society of Hematology meetings, Dr Nicholas Burwick of the Puget Sound Veterans Administration Health Care System discusses studies ranging from first-line treatment to options for relapsed/refractory disease. 

Dr Burwick cites a Veterans Health Administration study documenting the increasing movement toward novel agents as frontline treatment in CLL since 2018, and the emerging trend toward use of second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. 

Next, he discusses a study examining the frontline combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax, which may help overcome poor prognosis associated with unmutated IGHV CLL. 

In another study, the combination of venetoclax and ibrutinib was examined in high-risk patients treated with ibrutinib for 1 year. The results showed the combination deepens responses and even offers the potential for discontinuation of therapy. 

Turning to relapsed/refractory disease, Dr Burwick highlights the latest results of pirtobrutinib, which continues to show efficacy among heavily pretreated patients regardless of prior therapy, reason for discontinuation, or mutation status. 

Finally, he points to zanubrutinib, which demonstrated superiority to ibrutinib in a long-range study of progression-free survival.  

--

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, Associate Professor, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington; Attending Physician, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Puget Sound VA Health Care System, Seattle, Washington 

Nicholas R. Burwick, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

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

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

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

Why won’t patients listen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to encourage adherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

When should you redirect care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why won’t patients listen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to encourage adherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

When should you redirect care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why won’t patients listen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to encourage adherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

When should you redirect care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autoimmune disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Important implications’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autoimmune disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Important implications’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autoimmune disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Important implications’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is 61% higher among older people with moderate to severe hearing loss compared with those with normal hearing, new national data show.

Investigators also found that even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and that hearing aid use was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence.

“Every 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 16% greater prevalence of dementia, such that prevalence of dementia in older adults with moderate or greater hearing loss was 61% higher than prevalence in those with normal hearing,” lead investigator Alison Huang, PhD, senior research associate in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and core faculty in the Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, Md., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Dose-dependent effect

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 2,413 community-dwelling participants in the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, continuous panel study of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.

Data from the study were collected during in-home interviews, setting it apart from previous work that relied on data collected in a clinical setting, Dr. Huang said.

“This study was able to capture more vulnerable populations, such as the oldest old and older adults with disabilities, typically excluded from prior epidemiologic studies of the hearing loss–dementia association that use clinic-based data collection, which only captures people who have the ability and means to get to clinics,” Dr. Huang said.

Weighted hearing loss prevalence was 36.7% for mild and 29.8% for moderate to severe hearing loss, and weighted prevalence of dementia was 10.3%.

Those with moderate to severe hearing loss were 61% more likely to have dementia than those with normal hearing (prevalence ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38).

Dementia prevalence increased with increasing severity of hearing loss: normal hearing: 6.19% (95% CI, 4.31-8.80); mild hearing loss: 8.93% (95% CI, 6.99-11.34); moderate/severe hearing loss: 16.52% (95% CI, 13.81-19.64). But only moderate to severe hearing loss showed a statistically significant association with dementia (P = .02).

Dementia prevalence increased 16% per 10-decibel increase in hearing loss (prevalence ratio 1.16; P < .001).

Among the 853 individuals in the study with moderate to severe hearing loss, those who used hearing aids (n = 414) had a 32% lower risk of dementia compared with those who didn’t use assistive devices (prevalence ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-1.00). This news organization last month reported on similar data published in JAMA Neurology suggesting that hearing aids reduce dementia risk.

“With this study, we were able to refine our understanding of the strength of the hearing loss–dementia association in a study more representative of older adults in the United States,” said Dr. Huang.
 

Robust association

Commenting on the findings, Justin S. Golub, MD, associate professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Columbia University, New York, said the study supports earlier research and suggests a “robust” association between hearing loss and dementia.

“The particular advantage of this study was that it was high quality and nationally representative,” Dr. Golub said. “It is also among a smaller set of studies that have shown hearing aid use to be associated with lower risk of dementia.”

Although not statistically significant, researchers did find increasing prevalence of dementia among people with only mild hearing loss, and clinicians should take note, said Dr. Golub, who was not involved with this study.

“We would expect the relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia to be weaker than severe hearing loss and dementia and, as a result, it might take more participants to show an association among the mild group,” Dr. Golub said.

“Even though this particular study did not specifically find a relationship between mild hearing loss and dementia, I would still recommend people to start treating their hearing loss when it is early,” Dr. Golub added.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Golub reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Telehealth parent-child interaction therapy improved the behavior of 3-year-olds with developmental delay in a randomized controlled trial.

The children received the therapy with their parents or caregivers, who were more likely to demonstrate positive parenting behaviors than parents in the control group, authors of the new research published in JAMA Pediatrics found.

Approximately 13% of children have some form of developmental delay (DD) and more than half of these children also have at least one mental health disorder, which makes behavior problems a common and ongoing challenge, Daniel M. Bagner, PhD, a psychologist at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues wrote.

Clinic-based interventions such as parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) have been effective for improving behavior in children with DD, the researchers said. PCIT involves in-session caregiver coaching using a 1-way mirror and a wireless earpiece worn by the caregiver.

Barriers to the use of PCIT, especially in marginalized and low-income communities, include transportation, clinician shortages, and stigma-related concerns about a clinic visit, the researchers wrote. Technology now allows for Internet-delivered PCIT to reach more children and families, but its effectiveness for children with DD has not been well studied.

In the new study, the researchers randomized 150 children with DD and externalizing behavior problems to up to 20 weeks of Internet-delivered parent-child interaction therapy (iPCIT) or to referral as usual (RAU, the control group). The children were randomized after completion of early intervention services within 3 months of their third birthday, and participated in the sessions with a parent or caregiver. Most of the participants were from economically disadvantaged households and underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.

The iPCIT intervention was conducted weekly with a remote therapist and lasted for 1-1.5 hours; approximately half of the families received the intervention in Spanish.

The primary outcome was rating on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and assessment of children and caregivers using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, fourth edition (DPICS). Assessments occurred at baseline and at week 20 (post treatment), with follow ups at 6 and 12 months.

Scores on the CBCL in the iPCIT group decreased from a mean of 61.18 at baseline to 53.83 post intervention. Scores for the control group started at 64.05 and decreased to 59.49 post intervention. At 6-12 months, the scores for both groups remained stable.

Children who received iPCIT with their parent or caregiver also showed significantly lower levels of externalizing behavior problems, compared with the RAU controls post treatment, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups based on the Cohen d measure of standardized effect size for differences between groups.

Significantly more children in the iPCIT group showed clinically significant improvements in externalizing problems at post treatment, compared with the RAU group (74% vs. 42%; P < .001) and at 6 months’ follow-up (73% vs. 45%; P = .002). However, the differences from baseline were not significantly different between the two groups after 12 months, which suggests that the effects may wane over time, the researchers noted.

In addition, the rate of child compliance with parent commands, as measured by a cleanup task, approximately doubled by the 12-month follow-up among children in the iPCIT group versus an increase of approximately one-third in the RAU group.

For secondary outcome measures related to caregiver behaviors, the proportion of observed positive parenting behaviors increased in the iPCIT group during the course of the intervention (postintervention odds ratio, 1.10), and the proportion of controlling and critical behaviors decreased (postintervention OR, 1.40). Harsh and inconsistent discipline decreased in both groups based on self-reports, but the decrease was steeper in iPCIT families.

iPCIT did not have a greater impact than RAU in reducing caregiver stress. The researchers wrote that they were not surprised by the lack of stress reduction “given mixed findings on the impact of parenting interventions on stress in caregivers of children with DD.”
 

Data support iPCIT potential

Overall, the results support findings from previous studies of clinic-based PCIT for children with DD and previous studies of telehealth interventions for typically developing children, the researchers said.

“Moreover, iPCIT-treated children not only showed reductions in behavior problems, such as aggression, but demonstrated higher rates of following directions, which is especially important for children entering kindergarten,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the narrow focus on the primary and secondary outcomes, the use of data from a single site in a single metropolitan area – which may limit generalizability – and the lack of comparison between iPCIT and a clinic-based PCIT control group, the researchers noted. The equipment in the current study was provided to families; therefore, differences in treatment response could not be attributed to differences in technology.

The study represents the first known randomized controlled trial to evaluate a telehealth parenting intervention for children with, according to the researchers. The results suggest that technology can be leveraged to help these patients, including those from ethnic minority families who may be underserved by clinic-based care in overcoming barriers to treatment such as transportation and availability of clinicians. Use of iPCIT could be a critical resource as young children with DD complete Part C services and enter the school system.
 

Practical pediatric takeaways

“This was a great study, well-designed and very important and helpful for pediatric providers,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Young children with developmental delay and/or mental and behavioral health disorders require early identification and intervention,” said Dr. Haut. However, obstacles to intervention include stigma or parental denial of the disorder, as well as more practical challenges related to transportation, time to access a clinic or office, potential long length of treatment, and cost.

“Despite availability of state programs for young children, follow up and continued services can be challenging to complete. Once the child outgrows the state program finding alternative therapy can be difficult with the current shortage of pediatric mental health providers,” Dr. Haut noted.

“I was surprised to see that this study treatment phase was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, when telehealth was not as popular a mode for health care and was not utilized to the extent that it is now, especially for pediatric care,” said Dr. Haut. “I was not surprised at the results, as the traditional mode of PCIT includes therapy and training in a space that may not be as familiar to the child as their home environment, and would include live presence of the therapist/s, which may add to anxiety for both the parent and child.”

That almost half of the parents participating in the study had graduated from college and/or completed graduate degrees “may have contributed to some of the success of this study,” Dr. Haut noted.
 

Benefits and barriers

“The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant change to the frequency of use and overall success of telehealth services,” Dr. Haut said. “Additional provider education in aspects such as provider technique and the use of medical devices with improved specific health care technology assisted in advancing the experience and opportunity for successful telehealth visits. Telehealth therapy offers a cost-effective option for any pediatric patients and for providers, as the time and space commitment for the patient visit can be considerably less than live office visits.

“Unfortunately, there are still overall barriers that I have personally experienced with telehealth, including interruptions in connectivity, background noise, and lack of an available computer or tablet; and with the use of cell phones not always allowing full inclusion of the caregiver and child,” said Dr. Haut. Children with DD, behavioral problems, or other mental health disorders may pose challenges for parents to manage at home while simultaneously trying to fully focus on the therapy in an online setting.

Although the current study is encouraging, “larger studies focused on specific or individual pediatric mental health and/or behavioral disorders may offer more information for providers, and better document the success of telehealth delivery of services,” Dr. Haut said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Bagner disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health. He also disclosed personal fees from PCIT International to train clinicians in PCIT supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Children and Families outside the current study. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Telehealth parent-child interaction therapy improved the behavior of 3-year-olds with developmental delay in a randomized controlled trial.

The children received the therapy with their parents or caregivers, who were more likely to demonstrate positive parenting behaviors than parents in the control group, authors of the new research published in JAMA Pediatrics found.

Approximately 13% of children have some form of developmental delay (DD) and more than half of these children also have at least one mental health disorder, which makes behavior problems a common and ongoing challenge, Daniel M. Bagner, PhD, a psychologist at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues wrote.

Clinic-based interventions such as parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) have been effective for improving behavior in children with DD, the researchers said. PCIT involves in-session caregiver coaching using a 1-way mirror and a wireless earpiece worn by the caregiver.

Barriers to the use of PCIT, especially in marginalized and low-income communities, include transportation, clinician shortages, and stigma-related concerns about a clinic visit, the researchers wrote. Technology now allows for Internet-delivered PCIT to reach more children and families, but its effectiveness for children with DD has not been well studied.

In the new study, the researchers randomized 150 children with DD and externalizing behavior problems to up to 20 weeks of Internet-delivered parent-child interaction therapy (iPCIT) or to referral as usual (RAU, the control group). The children were randomized after completion of early intervention services within 3 months of their third birthday, and participated in the sessions with a parent or caregiver. Most of the participants were from economically disadvantaged households and underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.

The iPCIT intervention was conducted weekly with a remote therapist and lasted for 1-1.5 hours; approximately half of the families received the intervention in Spanish.

The primary outcome was rating on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and assessment of children and caregivers using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, fourth edition (DPICS). Assessments occurred at baseline and at week 20 (post treatment), with follow ups at 6 and 12 months.

Scores on the CBCL in the iPCIT group decreased from a mean of 61.18 at baseline to 53.83 post intervention. Scores for the control group started at 64.05 and decreased to 59.49 post intervention. At 6-12 months, the scores for both groups remained stable.

Children who received iPCIT with their parent or caregiver also showed significantly lower levels of externalizing behavior problems, compared with the RAU controls post treatment, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups based on the Cohen d measure of standardized effect size for differences between groups.

Significantly more children in the iPCIT group showed clinically significant improvements in externalizing problems at post treatment, compared with the RAU group (74% vs. 42%; P < .001) and at 6 months’ follow-up (73% vs. 45%; P = .002). However, the differences from baseline were not significantly different between the two groups after 12 months, which suggests that the effects may wane over time, the researchers noted.

In addition, the rate of child compliance with parent commands, as measured by a cleanup task, approximately doubled by the 12-month follow-up among children in the iPCIT group versus an increase of approximately one-third in the RAU group.

For secondary outcome measures related to caregiver behaviors, the proportion of observed positive parenting behaviors increased in the iPCIT group during the course of the intervention (postintervention odds ratio, 1.10), and the proportion of controlling and critical behaviors decreased (postintervention OR, 1.40). Harsh and inconsistent discipline decreased in both groups based on self-reports, but the decrease was steeper in iPCIT families.

iPCIT did not have a greater impact than RAU in reducing caregiver stress. The researchers wrote that they were not surprised by the lack of stress reduction “given mixed findings on the impact of parenting interventions on stress in caregivers of children with DD.”
 

Data support iPCIT potential

Overall, the results support findings from previous studies of clinic-based PCIT for children with DD and previous studies of telehealth interventions for typically developing children, the researchers said.

“Moreover, iPCIT-treated children not only showed reductions in behavior problems, such as aggression, but demonstrated higher rates of following directions, which is especially important for children entering kindergarten,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the narrow focus on the primary and secondary outcomes, the use of data from a single site in a single metropolitan area – which may limit generalizability – and the lack of comparison between iPCIT and a clinic-based PCIT control group, the researchers noted. The equipment in the current study was provided to families; therefore, differences in treatment response could not be attributed to differences in technology.

The study represents the first known randomized controlled trial to evaluate a telehealth parenting intervention for children with, according to the researchers. The results suggest that technology can be leveraged to help these patients, including those from ethnic minority families who may be underserved by clinic-based care in overcoming barriers to treatment such as transportation and availability of clinicians. Use of iPCIT could be a critical resource as young children with DD complete Part C services and enter the school system.
 

Practical pediatric takeaways

“This was a great study, well-designed and very important and helpful for pediatric providers,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Young children with developmental delay and/or mental and behavioral health disorders require early identification and intervention,” said Dr. Haut. However, obstacles to intervention include stigma or parental denial of the disorder, as well as more practical challenges related to transportation, time to access a clinic or office, potential long length of treatment, and cost.

“Despite availability of state programs for young children, follow up and continued services can be challenging to complete. Once the child outgrows the state program finding alternative therapy can be difficult with the current shortage of pediatric mental health providers,” Dr. Haut noted.

“I was surprised to see that this study treatment phase was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, when telehealth was not as popular a mode for health care and was not utilized to the extent that it is now, especially for pediatric care,” said Dr. Haut. “I was not surprised at the results, as the traditional mode of PCIT includes therapy and training in a space that may not be as familiar to the child as their home environment, and would include live presence of the therapist/s, which may add to anxiety for both the parent and child.”

That almost half of the parents participating in the study had graduated from college and/or completed graduate degrees “may have contributed to some of the success of this study,” Dr. Haut noted.
 

Benefits and barriers

“The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant change to the frequency of use and overall success of telehealth services,” Dr. Haut said. “Additional provider education in aspects such as provider technique and the use of medical devices with improved specific health care technology assisted in advancing the experience and opportunity for successful telehealth visits. Telehealth therapy offers a cost-effective option for any pediatric patients and for providers, as the time and space commitment for the patient visit can be considerably less than live office visits.

“Unfortunately, there are still overall barriers that I have personally experienced with telehealth, including interruptions in connectivity, background noise, and lack of an available computer or tablet; and with the use of cell phones not always allowing full inclusion of the caregiver and child,” said Dr. Haut. Children with DD, behavioral problems, or other mental health disorders may pose challenges for parents to manage at home while simultaneously trying to fully focus on the therapy in an online setting.

Although the current study is encouraging, “larger studies focused on specific or individual pediatric mental health and/or behavioral disorders may offer more information for providers, and better document the success of telehealth delivery of services,” Dr. Haut said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Bagner disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health. He also disclosed personal fees from PCIT International to train clinicians in PCIT supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Children and Families outside the current study. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Telehealth parent-child interaction therapy improved the behavior of 3-year-olds with developmental delay in a randomized controlled trial.

The children received the therapy with their parents or caregivers, who were more likely to demonstrate positive parenting behaviors than parents in the control group, authors of the new research published in JAMA Pediatrics found.

Approximately 13% of children have some form of developmental delay (DD) and more than half of these children also have at least one mental health disorder, which makes behavior problems a common and ongoing challenge, Daniel M. Bagner, PhD, a psychologist at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues wrote.

Clinic-based interventions such as parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) have been effective for improving behavior in children with DD, the researchers said. PCIT involves in-session caregiver coaching using a 1-way mirror and a wireless earpiece worn by the caregiver.

Barriers to the use of PCIT, especially in marginalized and low-income communities, include transportation, clinician shortages, and stigma-related concerns about a clinic visit, the researchers wrote. Technology now allows for Internet-delivered PCIT to reach more children and families, but its effectiveness for children with DD has not been well studied.

In the new study, the researchers randomized 150 children with DD and externalizing behavior problems to up to 20 weeks of Internet-delivered parent-child interaction therapy (iPCIT) or to referral as usual (RAU, the control group). The children were randomized after completion of early intervention services within 3 months of their third birthday, and participated in the sessions with a parent or caregiver. Most of the participants were from economically disadvantaged households and underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.

The iPCIT intervention was conducted weekly with a remote therapist and lasted for 1-1.5 hours; approximately half of the families received the intervention in Spanish.

The primary outcome was rating on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and assessment of children and caregivers using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System, fourth edition (DPICS). Assessments occurred at baseline and at week 20 (post treatment), with follow ups at 6 and 12 months.

Scores on the CBCL in the iPCIT group decreased from a mean of 61.18 at baseline to 53.83 post intervention. Scores for the control group started at 64.05 and decreased to 59.49 post intervention. At 6-12 months, the scores for both groups remained stable.

Children who received iPCIT with their parent or caregiver also showed significantly lower levels of externalizing behavior problems, compared with the RAU controls post treatment, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups based on the Cohen d measure of standardized effect size for differences between groups.

Significantly more children in the iPCIT group showed clinically significant improvements in externalizing problems at post treatment, compared with the RAU group (74% vs. 42%; P < .001) and at 6 months’ follow-up (73% vs. 45%; P = .002). However, the differences from baseline were not significantly different between the two groups after 12 months, which suggests that the effects may wane over time, the researchers noted.

In addition, the rate of child compliance with parent commands, as measured by a cleanup task, approximately doubled by the 12-month follow-up among children in the iPCIT group versus an increase of approximately one-third in the RAU group.

For secondary outcome measures related to caregiver behaviors, the proportion of observed positive parenting behaviors increased in the iPCIT group during the course of the intervention (postintervention odds ratio, 1.10), and the proportion of controlling and critical behaviors decreased (postintervention OR, 1.40). Harsh and inconsistent discipline decreased in both groups based on self-reports, but the decrease was steeper in iPCIT families.

iPCIT did not have a greater impact than RAU in reducing caregiver stress. The researchers wrote that they were not surprised by the lack of stress reduction “given mixed findings on the impact of parenting interventions on stress in caregivers of children with DD.”
 

Data support iPCIT potential

Overall, the results support findings from previous studies of clinic-based PCIT for children with DD and previous studies of telehealth interventions for typically developing children, the researchers said.

“Moreover, iPCIT-treated children not only showed reductions in behavior problems, such as aggression, but demonstrated higher rates of following directions, which is especially important for children entering kindergarten,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the narrow focus on the primary and secondary outcomes, the use of data from a single site in a single metropolitan area – which may limit generalizability – and the lack of comparison between iPCIT and a clinic-based PCIT control group, the researchers noted. The equipment in the current study was provided to families; therefore, differences in treatment response could not be attributed to differences in technology.

The study represents the first known randomized controlled trial to evaluate a telehealth parenting intervention for children with, according to the researchers. The results suggest that technology can be leveraged to help these patients, including those from ethnic minority families who may be underserved by clinic-based care in overcoming barriers to treatment such as transportation and availability of clinicians. Use of iPCIT could be a critical resource as young children with DD complete Part C services and enter the school system.
 

Practical pediatric takeaways

“This was a great study, well-designed and very important and helpful for pediatric providers,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Young children with developmental delay and/or mental and behavioral health disorders require early identification and intervention,” said Dr. Haut. However, obstacles to intervention include stigma or parental denial of the disorder, as well as more practical challenges related to transportation, time to access a clinic or office, potential long length of treatment, and cost.

“Despite availability of state programs for young children, follow up and continued services can be challenging to complete. Once the child outgrows the state program finding alternative therapy can be difficult with the current shortage of pediatric mental health providers,” Dr. Haut noted.

“I was surprised to see that this study treatment phase was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, when telehealth was not as popular a mode for health care and was not utilized to the extent that it is now, especially for pediatric care,” said Dr. Haut. “I was not surprised at the results, as the traditional mode of PCIT includes therapy and training in a space that may not be as familiar to the child as their home environment, and would include live presence of the therapist/s, which may add to anxiety for both the parent and child.”

That almost half of the parents participating in the study had graduated from college and/or completed graduate degrees “may have contributed to some of the success of this study,” Dr. Haut noted.
 

Benefits and barriers

“The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant change to the frequency of use and overall success of telehealth services,” Dr. Haut said. “Additional provider education in aspects such as provider technique and the use of medical devices with improved specific health care technology assisted in advancing the experience and opportunity for successful telehealth visits. Telehealth therapy offers a cost-effective option for any pediatric patients and for providers, as the time and space commitment for the patient visit can be considerably less than live office visits.

“Unfortunately, there are still overall barriers that I have personally experienced with telehealth, including interruptions in connectivity, background noise, and lack of an available computer or tablet; and with the use of cell phones not always allowing full inclusion of the caregiver and child,” said Dr. Haut. Children with DD, behavioral problems, or other mental health disorders may pose challenges for parents to manage at home while simultaneously trying to fully focus on the therapy in an online setting.

Although the current study is encouraging, “larger studies focused on specific or individual pediatric mental health and/or behavioral disorders may offer more information for providers, and better document the success of telehealth delivery of services,” Dr. Haut said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Bagner disclosed funding from the National Institutes of Health. He also disclosed personal fees from PCIT International to train clinicians in PCIT supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Children and Families outside the current study. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

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

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

Sandeep Jauhar, MD: Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost one-third of patients with chronic pain report using medical cannabis to manage that pain, with more than half of them decreasing use of other pain medications, including opioids, new research shows.

“That patients report substituting cannabis for pain medicines so much really underscores the need for research on the benefits and risks of using cannabis for chronic pain,” lead author Mark C. Bicket, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of anesthesiology, and director, Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

However, he added, the question is whether they’re turning to cannabis and away from other pain treatments. “What’s not clear and one of the gaps that we wanted to address in the study was if medical cannabis use is changing the use of other treatments for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Decreased opioid use

The survey included a representative sample of 1724 American adults aged 18 years or older with chronic noncancer pain living in areas with a medical cannabis program.

Respondents were asked about their use of three categories of pain treatments. This included medical cannabis; pharmacologic treatments including prescription opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and over-the-counter analgesics; and common nonpharmacologic treatments such as physical therapy, meditation, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).

Just over 96% of respondents completed the full survey. About 57% of the sample was female and the mean age of the study sample was 52.3 years.

Among study participants, 31% (95% CI, 28.2% - 34.1%) reported having ever used cannabis to manage pain; 25.9% (95% confidence interval, 23.2%-28.8%) reported use in the past 12 months, and 23.2% (95% CI, 20.6%-26%) reported use in the past 30 days.

“This translates into a large number of individuals who are using cannabis in an intended medical way” to treat chronic condition such as low back pain, migraine, and fibromyalgia, said Dr. Bicket.

More than half of survey respondents reported their medical cannabis use led to a decrease in prescription opioid use, prescription nonopioid use and use of over-the-counter medications.

Dr. Bicket noted “almost no one” said medical cannabis use led to higher use of these drugs.

As for nonpharmacologic treatments, 38.7% reported their use of cannabis led to decreased use of physical therapy, 19.1% to lower use of meditation, and 26% to less CBT. At the same time, 5.9%, 23.7% and 17.1%, respectively, reported it led to increased use of physical therapy, meditation, and CBT.

Medical cannabis is regulated at a state level. On a federal level, it’s considered a Schedule I substance, which means it’s deemed not to have a therapeutic use, although some groups are trying to change that categorization, said Dr. Bicket.

As a result, cannabis products “are quite variable” in terms of how they’re used (smoked, eaten etc.) and in their composition, including percentage of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol.

“We really don’t have a good sense of the relative risks and benefits that could come from cannabis as a treatment for chronic pain,” said Dr. Bicket. “As a physician, it’s difficult to have discussions with patients because I’m not able to understand the products they’re using based on this regulatory environment we have.”

He added clinicians “are operating in an area of uncertainty right now.”

What’s needed is research to determine how safe and effective medical cannabis is for chronic pain, he said.
 

Pain a leading indication

Commenting on the findings, Jason W. Busse, PhD, professor, department of anesthesia, and associate director, Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said the study reinforces results of some prior research.

“It gives us current information certainly highlighting the high rate of use of medical cannabis among individuals with chronic pain once it becomes legally available.”

In addition, this high rate of use “means we desperately need information about the benefits and harms” of medical marijuana, he said.

Dr. Busse noted the survey didn’t provide information on the types of cannabis being used or the mode of administration. Oil drops and sprays cause less pulmonary harm than smoked versions, he said. It’s also not clear from the survey if participants are taking formulations with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol that are associated with greater risk of harm.

He noted cannabis may interact with prescription drugs to make them less effective or, in some cases, to augment their adverse effects.

Dr. Busse pointed out some patients could be using fewer opioids because providers are under “enormous pressure” to reduce prescriptions of these drugs in the wake of spikes in opioid overdoses and deaths.

Chronic pain is “absolutely the leading indication” for medical marijuana, said Dr. Busse. U.S. reimbursement data suggest up to 65% of individuals get cannabis to treat a listed indication for chronic pain.

He said he hopes this new study will increase interest in funding new trials “so we can have better evidence to guide practice to help patients make decisions.”

The study received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Bicket reported receiving personal fees from Axial Healthcare as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Arnold Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.

CASE Patient wants to reduce her risk of cesarean delivery (CD)

A 30-year-old primigravid woman expresses concern about her increased risk for CD as a Black woman. She has been reading in the news about the increased risks of CD and birth complications, and she asks what she can do to decrease her risk of having a CD.

What is the problem?

Recently, attention has been called to the stark racial disparities in severe maternal morbidity and mortality. Cesarean delivery rates illustrate an area in obstetric management in which racial disparities exist. It is well known that morbidity associated with CD is much higher than morbidity associated with vaginal delivery, which begs the question of whether disparities in mode of delivery may play a role in the disparity in maternal morbidity and mortality.

In the United States, 32% of all births between 2018 and 2020 were by CD. However, only 31% of White women delivered via CD as compared with 36% of Black women and 33% of Asian women.¹ In 2021, the primary CD rates were 26% for Black women, 24% for Asian women, 21% for Hispanic women, and 22% for White women.² This racial disparity, particularly between Black and White women, has been seen across nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex (NTSV) groups as well as multiparous women with prior vaginal delivery.^3,4 The disparity persists after adjusting for risk factors.

A secondary analysis of groups deemed at low risk for CD within the ARRIVE trial study group reported the adjusted relative risk of CD birth for Black women as 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.42) compared with White women and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.08–1.46) for Hispanic women.⁵ The investigators estimated that this accounted for 15% of excess maternal morbidity.⁵ These studies also have shown that a disparity exists in indication for CD, with Black women more likely to have a CD for the diagnosis of nonreassuring fetal tracing while White women are more likely to have a CD for failure to progress.

Patients who undergo CD are less likely to breastfeed, and they have a more difficult recovery, increased risks of infection, thromboembolic events, and increased risks for future pregnancy. Along with increased focus on racial disparities in obstetrics outcomes within the medical community, patients also have become more attuned to these racial disparities in maternal morbidity as this has increasingly become a topic of focus within the mainstream media.

What is behind differences in mode of delivery?

The drivers of racial inequities in mode of delivery remain unclear. One might question whether increased prevalence of morbidities in pregnancy, such as diabetes and hypertension, in minority women might influence the disparity in CD. However, the disparity persists in studies of low-risk women and in studies that statistically adjust for factors that include preeclampsia, obesity, diabetes, and fetal growth restriction, which argues that maternal morbidity alone is not responsible for the differences observed.

Race is a social construct, and as such there is no biologically plausible explanation for the racial disparities in CD rates. Differences in health outcomes should be considered a result of the impact of racism. Disparities can be influenced by patient level, provider level, and systemic level factors.⁶ Provider biases have a negative impact on care for minority groups and they influence disparities in health care.⁷ The subjectivity involved in diagnoses of nonreassuring fetal tracing as an indication for CD creates an opportunity for implicit biases and discrimination to enter decision-making for indications for CD. Furthermore, no differences have been seen in Apgar score or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in studies where indication of nonreassuring fetal heart tracing drove the disparity for CD.⁵

A study that retrospectively compared labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rates, such as application of guidelines for failed induction of labor, arrest of dilation, arrest of descent, nonreassuring fetus status, or cervical ripening, did not observe differential use of labor management strategies intended to reduce CD rate.⁸ By contrast, Hamm and colleagues observed that implementation of a standardized induction protocol was associated with a decreased CD rate among Black women but not non-Black women and the standardized protocol was associated with a decrease in the racial disparity in CD.⁹ A theory behind their findings is that provider bias is less when there is implementation of a standardized protocol, algorithm, or guidelines, which in turn reduces disparity in mode of delivery.

Clearly, more research is needed for the mechanisms behind inequities in mode of delivery and the influence of provider factors. Future studies also are needed to evaluate how patient level factors, including belief systems and culture preferences, and how system level factors, such as access to prenatal care and the health system processes, are associated with CD rates.

Next steps

While the mechanisms that drive the disparities in CD rate and indication may remain unclear, there are potential areas of intervention to decrease CD rates among minority and Black women.

Continuous support from a doula or layperson has been shown to decrease rates of cesarean birth,^10,11 and evidence indicates that minority women are interested in doula support but are less likely than White women to have access to doula care.¹² Programs that provide doula support for Black women are an intervention that would increase access to support and advocacy during labor for Black women.