In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — In 2003, researchers asked 303 patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) what bothered them most about their disease from an aesthetic standpoint: Orofacial features, such as thin lips and mouth furrows, or non-facial features, such as fingertip ulceration and waxy changes to the skin.

Respondents expressed significant concern about specific orofacial features, including thin lips (73%), mouth furrows (80%), loss of facial lines (68%), and a smaller, tighter mouth (77%).

“Patients with systemic sclerosis may have loss of vermilion lip, microstomia, and perioral rhytids,” Kathleen Cook Suozzi, MD, who directs the Aesthetic Dermatology Program at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the Controversies and Conversations in Laser and Cosmetic Surgery annual symposium. “How can we address these changes for our patients?”

Yale University School of Medicine

Recent research has shown that hyaluronidase injections can help improve orofacial changes commonly experienced by patients with scleroderma. In 2019, researchers in Alabama reported the case of a 53-year-old woman treated with hyaluronidase for scleroderma-induced microstomia. After four visits over 7 months and a total hyaluronidase dose of 470 IU, the patient reported an improved Mouth Handicap in Systemic Sclerosis (MHISS) score (38 of 48); subjective improvement of symptoms, including greater ease in eating and undergoing dental treatment; and improved mouth closure.

In 2023, researchers published a cohort study of four women between the ages of 43 and 61 with autoimmune sclerosing conditions that resulted in oral microstomia. Following hyaluronidase injections, all improved in mouth opening capacity and MHISS, with change stabilizing between three and five treatments. More recently, in a study pending publication in JAAD Case Reports, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 12 women with scleroderma who received between 150 and 300 units of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler for microstomia between 2020 and 2023. Of the 12 women, 58% had diffuse disease, and 42% had limited disease. Overall, oral aperture width increased by 0.65 cm (P = .0027) and oral aperture height increased by 0.88 cm (P < .0001). “In general, patients needed three to four treatments to reach peak effect, and then they reached a plateau,” Dr. Suozzi said. “It wasn’t that the treatment wasn’t working anymore, but it was because their oral aperture had gotten to a size of around 5 cm, which is clinically normal. Interestingly, we found that if the patient’s disease flared and their microstomia started to return, when you rechallenged them, they continued to respond. So, patients can continue to use this treatment over time.”

In a separate case series of seven patients, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues prospectively evaluated the effect of HA soft tissue filler with Restylane Silk for lip augmentation. Study participants experienced statistically significant increases in the difference between pre- and postinjection fullness in both upper and lower lips. Also, the mean posttreatment score fell between “much improved” (2) and “improved” (3) on both the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale and the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale.

Dr. Suozzi recommends using nerve blocks for injecting HA filler or hyaluronidase in patients with scleroderma and minimizing the injection points. “Initially, we were using 30% lidocaine preparations around the mouth for an hour before the procedure, and patients were still having pain, so now we use nerve blocks,” she said. “For hyaluronidase, we do perform a test dose of 75-100 units, usually in the commissure. It’s amazing how well it works; people will usually come back after their test dose and have improvements in their measurements. This is a really easy treatment to perform, and I think it can be done in the office of a general dermatologist. There is concern about cross-reactivity with bee venom, so you want to ask patients about that.”

Dr. Suozzi reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — In 2003, researchers asked 303 patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) what bothered them most about their disease from an aesthetic standpoint: Orofacial features, such as thin lips and mouth furrows, or non-facial features, such as fingertip ulceration and waxy changes to the skin.

Respondents expressed significant concern about specific orofacial features, including thin lips (73%), mouth furrows (80%), loss of facial lines (68%), and a smaller, tighter mouth (77%).

“Patients with systemic sclerosis may have loss of vermilion lip, microstomia, and perioral rhytids,” Kathleen Cook Suozzi, MD, who directs the Aesthetic Dermatology Program at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the Controversies and Conversations in Laser and Cosmetic Surgery annual symposium. “How can we address these changes for our patients?”

Yale University School of Medicine

Recent research has shown that hyaluronidase injections can help improve orofacial changes commonly experienced by patients with scleroderma. In 2019, researchers in Alabama reported the case of a 53-year-old woman treated with hyaluronidase for scleroderma-induced microstomia. After four visits over 7 months and a total hyaluronidase dose of 470 IU, the patient reported an improved Mouth Handicap in Systemic Sclerosis (MHISS) score (38 of 48); subjective improvement of symptoms, including greater ease in eating and undergoing dental treatment; and improved mouth closure.

In 2023, researchers published a cohort study of four women between the ages of 43 and 61 with autoimmune sclerosing conditions that resulted in oral microstomia. Following hyaluronidase injections, all improved in mouth opening capacity and MHISS, with change stabilizing between three and five treatments. More recently, in a study pending publication in JAAD Case Reports, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 12 women with scleroderma who received between 150 and 300 units of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler for microstomia between 2020 and 2023. Of the 12 women, 58% had diffuse disease, and 42% had limited disease. Overall, oral aperture width increased by 0.65 cm (P = .0027) and oral aperture height increased by 0.88 cm (P < .0001). “In general, patients needed three to four treatments to reach peak effect, and then they reached a plateau,” Dr. Suozzi said. “It wasn’t that the treatment wasn’t working anymore, but it was because their oral aperture had gotten to a size of around 5 cm, which is clinically normal. Interestingly, we found that if the patient’s disease flared and their microstomia started to return, when you rechallenged them, they continued to respond. So, patients can continue to use this treatment over time.”

In a separate case series of seven patients, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues prospectively evaluated the effect of HA soft tissue filler with Restylane Silk for lip augmentation. Study participants experienced statistically significant increases in the difference between pre- and postinjection fullness in both upper and lower lips. Also, the mean posttreatment score fell between “much improved” (2) and “improved” (3) on both the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale and the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale.

Dr. Suozzi recommends using nerve blocks for injecting HA filler or hyaluronidase in patients with scleroderma and minimizing the injection points. “Initially, we were using 30% lidocaine preparations around the mouth for an hour before the procedure, and patients were still having pain, so now we use nerve blocks,” she said. “For hyaluronidase, we do perform a test dose of 75-100 units, usually in the commissure. It’s amazing how well it works; people will usually come back after their test dose and have improvements in their measurements. This is a really easy treatment to perform, and I think it can be done in the office of a general dermatologist. There is concern about cross-reactivity with bee venom, so you want to ask patients about that.”

Dr. Suozzi reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA — In 2003, researchers asked 303 patients with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) what bothered them most about their disease from an aesthetic standpoint: Orofacial features, such as thin lips and mouth furrows, or non-facial features, such as fingertip ulceration and waxy changes to the skin.

Respondents expressed significant concern about specific orofacial features, including thin lips (73%), mouth furrows (80%), loss of facial lines (68%), and a smaller, tighter mouth (77%).

“Patients with systemic sclerosis may have loss of vermilion lip, microstomia, and perioral rhytids,” Kathleen Cook Suozzi, MD, who directs the Aesthetic Dermatology Program at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the Controversies and Conversations in Laser and Cosmetic Surgery annual symposium. “How can we address these changes for our patients?”

Yale University School of Medicine

Recent research has shown that hyaluronidase injections can help improve orofacial changes commonly experienced by patients with scleroderma. In 2019, researchers in Alabama reported the case of a 53-year-old woman treated with hyaluronidase for scleroderma-induced microstomia. After four visits over 7 months and a total hyaluronidase dose of 470 IU, the patient reported an improved Mouth Handicap in Systemic Sclerosis (MHISS) score (38 of 48); subjective improvement of symptoms, including greater ease in eating and undergoing dental treatment; and improved mouth closure.

In 2023, researchers published a cohort study of four women between the ages of 43 and 61 with autoimmune sclerosing conditions that resulted in oral microstomia. Following hyaluronidase injections, all improved in mouth opening capacity and MHISS, with change stabilizing between three and five treatments. More recently, in a study pending publication in JAAD Case Reports, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 12 women with scleroderma who received between 150 and 300 units of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler for microstomia between 2020 and 2023. Of the 12 women, 58% had diffuse disease, and 42% had limited disease. Overall, oral aperture width increased by 0.65 cm (P = .0027) and oral aperture height increased by 0.88 cm (P < .0001). “In general, patients needed three to four treatments to reach peak effect, and then they reached a plateau,” Dr. Suozzi said. “It wasn’t that the treatment wasn’t working anymore, but it was because their oral aperture had gotten to a size of around 5 cm, which is clinically normal. Interestingly, we found that if the patient’s disease flared and their microstomia started to return, when you rechallenged them, they continued to respond. So, patients can continue to use this treatment over time.”

In a separate case series of seven patients, Dr. Suozzi and colleagues prospectively evaluated the effect of HA soft tissue filler with Restylane Silk for lip augmentation. Study participants experienced statistically significant increases in the difference between pre- and postinjection fullness in both upper and lower lips. Also, the mean posttreatment score fell between “much improved” (2) and “improved” (3) on both the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale and the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale.

Dr. Suozzi recommends using nerve blocks for injecting HA filler or hyaluronidase in patients with scleroderma and minimizing the injection points. “Initially, we were using 30% lidocaine preparations around the mouth for an hour before the procedure, and patients were still having pain, so now we use nerve blocks,” she said. “For hyaluronidase, we do perform a test dose of 75-100 units, usually in the commissure. It’s amazing how well it works; people will usually come back after their test dose and have improvements in their measurements. This is a really easy treatment to perform, and I think it can be done in the office of a general dermatologist. There is concern about cross-reactivity with bee venom, so you want to ask patients about that.”

Dr. Suozzi reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Like many diseases, whooping cough reached record low levels during the early days of the COVID pandemic. Also known as pertussis, it’s back with a vengeance and could even threaten people who are vaccinated against the disease, since protection fades over time.

More than 10,000 cases of whooping cough have been reported in the United States so far this year, and weekly reports say cases have more than tripled 2023 levels as of June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2023, there were 2815 cases reported during the entire year.

“The number of reported cases this year is close to what was seen at the same time in 2019, prior to the pandemic,” the CDC reported. There were 18,617 cases of whooping cough in 2019.

There were 259 cases reported nationwide for the week ending Aug. 3, with nearly half occurring in the mid-Atlantic region. Public health officials believe the resurgence of whooping cough is likely due to declining vaccination rates, mainly due to the missed vaccines during the height of the COVID pandemic. The diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccines (DTaP) have been given together since the 1940s, typically during infancy and again during early childhood. In 1941, there were more than 220,000 cases of whooping cough.

Whooping cough is caused by the bacteria Bordetella pertussis. The bacteria attach to tiny, hair-like extensions in the upper respiratory system called cilia, and toxins released by them damage the cilia and cause airways to swell. Early symptoms are similar to the common cold, but the condition eventually leads to coughing fits and a high-pitched “whoop” sound made when inhaling after a fit subsides. Coughing fits can be so severe that people can fracture a rib.

Vaccinated people may get a less severe illness, compared to unvaccinated people, the CDC says. Babies and children are particularly at risk for severe and even potentially deadly complications. About one in three babies under age 1 who get whooping cough will need to be hospitalized, and among those hospitalized babies, 1 in 100 die from complications.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved durvalumab (Imfinzi; AstraZeneca) both before and after surgery in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.

The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary. 

Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery. 

The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. 

AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year. 

The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release. 

Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment. 

The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg. 

Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved durvalumab (Imfinzi; AstraZeneca) both before and after surgery in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.

The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary. 

Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery. 

The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. 

AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year. 

The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release. 

Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment. 

The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg. 

Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved durvalumab (Imfinzi; AstraZeneca) both before and after surgery in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. The agency approved durvalumab alongside platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and as monotherapy in the adjuvant setting.

The approval comes shortly after a meeting of FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee, where agency personnel took AstraZeneca to task for not following its request to include an arm in the approval study, AEGEAN, to clarify whether or not treatment after surgery was necessary. 

Even so, advisers at the July 25 meeting voted “yes” to approving the neoadjuvant/adjuvant indication to give patients another immunotherapy option in NSCLC. However, the committee voted unanimously that, going forward, the agency should require — instead of simply request — that companies seeking combined neoadjuvant/adjuvant NSCLC indications show that patients actually need treatment after surgery. 

The new approval is durvalumab’s first indication for resectable NSCLC. The agent has been previously approved for unresectable or metastatic disease as well as extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, and advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. 

AEGEAN included 802 patients with previously untreated and resectable stage IIA-IIIB squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either durvalumab (400 patients) or placebo (402 patients) on a background of platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for four cycles then, following surgery, durvalumab or placebo once a month for a year. 

The pathologic complete response rate was 17% in the durvalumab arm vs 4.3% in the placebo arm. At 12 months, event-free survival was 73.4% with durvalumab vs 64.5% with placebo. Overall survival differences have not been tested for statistical significance, but there was “no clear detriment” with durvalumab, FDA said in a press release. 

Adverse reactions in 20% or more of durvalumab recipients included anemia, nausea, constipation, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and rash; 1.7% of durvalumab recipients and 1% of placebo recipients could not have surgery because of side effects during neoadjuvant treatment. 

The dosage for patients weighing > 30 kg is 1500 mg every 3 weeks before surgery and every 4 weeks afterward. For patients who weigh less than that, the recommended dosage is 20 mg/kg. 

Durvalumab costs around $1,053 for 120 mg, according to drugs.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2024, a 33-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes was boating on a hot day when her insulin delivery device slipped off. By the time she was able to exit the river, she was clearly ill, and an ambulance was called. The hospital was at capacity. Lying in the hallway, she was treated with fluids but not insulin, despite her boyfriend repeatedly telling the staff she had diabetes. She was released while still vomiting. The next morning, her boyfriend found her dead.

This story was shared by a friend of the woman in a Facebook group for people with type 1 diabetes and later confirmed by the boyfriend in a separate heartbreaking post. While it may be an extreme case, encounters with a lack of knowledge about type 1 diabetes in healthcare settings are quite common, sometimes resulting in serious adverse consequences.

In my 50+ years of living with the condition, I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to speak up for myself, correct errors, raise issues that haven’t been considered, and educate nonspecialist healthcare professionals about even some of the basics.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition in which the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are destroyed, necessitating lifelong insulin treatment. Type 2, in contrast, arises from a combination of insulin resistance and decreased insulin production. Type 1 accounts for just 5% of all people with diabetes, but at a prevalence of about 1 in 200, it’s not rare. And that’s not even counting the adults who have been misdiagnosed as having type 2 but who actually have type 1.

As a general rule, people with type 1 diabetes are more insulin sensitive than those with type 2 and more prone to both hyper- and hypoglycemia. Blood sugar levels tend to be more labile and less predictable, even under normal circumstances. Recent advances in hybrid closed-loop technology have been extremely helpful in reducing the swings, but the systems aren’t foolproof yet. They still require user input (ie, guesswork), so there’s still room for error.

Managing type 1 diabetes is challenging even for endocrinologists. But here are some very important basics that every healthcare provider should know.
 

We Need Insulin 24/7

Never, ever withhold insulin from a person with type 1 diabetes, for any reason. Even when not eating — or when vomiting — we still need basal (background) insulin, either via long-acting analog or a pump infusion. The dose may need to be lowered to avoid hypoglycemia, but if insulin is stopped, diabetic ketoacidosis will result. And if that continues, death will follow.

This should be basic knowledge, but I’ve read and heard far too many stories of insulin being withheld from people with type 1 in various settings, including emergency departments, psychiatric facilities, and jails. On Facebook, people with type 1 diabetes often report being told not to take their insulin the morning before a procedure, while more than one has described “sneaking” their own insulin while hospitalized because they weren’t receiving any or not receiving enough.

On the flip side, although insulin needs are very individual, the amount needed for someone with type 1 is typically considerably less than for a person with type 2. Too much can result in severe hypoglycemia. There are lots of stories from people with type 1 diabetes who had to battle with hospital staff who tried to give them much higher doses than they knew they needed.

The American Diabetes Association recommends that people with type 1 diabetes who are hospitalized be allowed to wear their devices and self-manage to the degree possible. And please, listen to us when we tell you what we know about our own condition.
 

Fasting Is Fraught

I cringe every time I’m told to fast for a test or procedure. Fasting poses a risk for hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes, even when using state-of-the-art technology. Fasting should not be required unless absolutely necessary, especially for routine lab tests.

Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, has published several papers on a phenomenon he calls “Fasting-Evoked En Route Hypoglycemia in Diabetes,” in which patients who fast overnight and skip breakfast experience hypoglycemia on the way to the lab.

“Patients continue taking their diabetes medication but don’t eat anything, resulting in low blood sugar levels that cause them to have a hypoglycemic event while driving to or from the lab, putting themselves and others at risk,” Dr. Aldasouqi explained, adding that fasting often isn’t necessary for routine lipid panels.

If fasting is necessary, as for a surgical procedure that involves anesthesia, the need for insulin adjustment — NOT withholding — should be discussed with the patient to determine whether they can do it themselves or whether their diabetes provider should be consulted.

But again, this is tricky even for endocrinologists. True story: When I had my second carpal tunnel surgery in July 2019, my hand surgeon wisely scheduled me for his first procedure in the morning to minimize the length of time I’d have to fast. (He has type 1 diabetes himself, which helped.) My endocrinologist had advised me, per guidelines, to cut back my basal insulin infusion on my pump by 20% before going to bed.

But at bedtime, my continuous glucose monitor (CGM) showed that I was in the 170 mg/dL’s and rising, not entirely surprising since I’d cut back on my predinner insulin dose knowing I wouldn’t be able to eat if I dropped low later. I didn’t cut back the basal.

When I woke up, my glucose level was over 300 mg/dL. This time, stress was the likely cause. (That’s happened before.) Despite giving myself several small insulin boluses that morning without eating, my blood sugar was still about 345 mg/dL when I arrived at the hospital. The nurse told me that if it had been over 375 mg/dL, they would have had to cancel the surgery, but it wasn’t, so they went ahead. I have no idea how they came up with that cutoff.

Anyway, thankfully, everything went fine; I brought my blood sugar back in target range afterward and healed normally. Point being, type 1 diabetes management is a crazy balancing act, and guidelines only go so far.
 

We Don’t React Well to Steroids

If it’s absolutely necessary to give steroids to a person with type 1 diabetes for any reason, plans must be made in advance for the inevitable glucose spike. If the person doesn’t know how to adjust their insulin for it, please have them consult their diabetes provider. In my experience with locally injected corticosteroids, the spike is always higher and longer than I expected. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with systemic steroids, but my guess is they’re probably worse.

Procedures Can Be Pesky

People who wear insulin pumps and/or CGMs must remove them for MRI and certain other imaging procedures. In some cases — as with CGMs and the Omnipod insulin delivery device that can’t be put back on after removal — this necessitates advance planning to bring along replacement equipment for immediately after the procedure.

Diabetes devices can stay in place for other imaging studies, such as x-rays, most CT scans, ECGs, and ultrasounds. For heaven’s sake, don’t ask us to remove our devices if it isn’t totally necessary.

In general, surprises that affect blood sugar are a bad idea. I recently underwent a gastric emptying study. I knew the test would involve eating radioactive eggs, but I didn’t find out there’s also a jelly sandwich with two slices of white bread until the technician handed it to me and told me to eat it. I had to quickly give myself insulin, and of course my blood sugar spiked later. Had I been forewarned, I could have at least “pre-bolused” 15-20 minutes in advance to give the insulin more time to start working.

Another anecdote: Prior to a dental appointment that involved numbing my gums for an in-depth cleaning, my longtime dental hygienist told me “be sure to eat before you come.” I do appreciate her thinking of my diabetes. However, while that advice would have made sense long ago when treatment involved two daily insulin injections without dose adjustments, now it’s more complicated.

Today, when we eat foods containing carbohydrates, we typically take short-acting insulin, which can lead to hypoglycemia if the dose given exceeds the amount needed for the carbs, regardless of how much is eaten. Better to not eat at all (assuming the basal insulin dose is correct) or just eat protein. And for the provider, best to just tell the patient about the eating limitations and make sure they know how to handle them.
 

Duh, We Already Have Diabetes

I’ve heard of at least four instances in which pregnant women with type 1 diabetes have been ordered to undergo an oral glucose tolerance test to screen for gestational diabetes. In two cases, it was a “can you believe it?!” post on Facebook, with the women rightly refusing to take the test.

But in May 2024, a pregnant woman reported she actually drank the liquid, her blood sugar skyrocketed, she was vomiting, and she was in the midst of trying to bring her glucose level down with insulin on her own at home. She hadn’t objected to taking the test because “my ob.gyn. knows I have diabetes,” so she figured it was appropriate.

I don’t work in a healthcare setting, but here’s my guess: The ob.gyn. hadn’t actually ordered the test but had neglected to UN-order a routine test for a pregnant patient who already had diabetes and obviously should NOT be forced to drink a high-sugar liquid for no reason. If this is happening in pregnancies with type 1 diabetes, it most certainly could be as well for those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes. Clearly, something should be done to prevent this unnecessary and potentially harmful scenario.

In summary, I think I speak for everyone living with type 1 diabetes in saying that we would like to have confidence that healthcare providers in all settings can provide care for whatever brought us to them without adding to the daily burden we already carry. Let’s work together.

Reviewed by Saleh Aldasouqi, MD, chief of endocrinology at Michigan State University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

This discussion was recorded on July 12, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Hi and welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. I recently met an innovative young woman named Hannah Herbst while attending the annual Eagles EMS Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Hannah Herbst is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and founder of a company called Golden Hour Medical. She has a background in IT and developed an automated pneumatic tourniquet known as AutoTQ, which we’re going to discuss at length here. 

Also joining us is Dr. Peter Antevy, a pediatric emergency physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue as well as Coral Springs Parkland Fire Rescue. Peter is a member of EMS Eagles Global Alliance and is highly involved in high-quality research in prehospital emergency care and is quite well known in Florida and nationally. 

Welcome to both of you. 

Hannah Herbst: Thank you very much. Very grateful to be here.

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, I’ll let you start by explaining what AutoTQ is and then compare that to a standard Combat Application Tourniquet (CAT).

Ms. Herbst: Thank you. Unfortunately, blood loss is a leading cause of preventable death and trauma. When there’s blood loss occurring from an arm or a leg, the easiest way to stop it is by applying a tourniquet, which is this compression type of device that you place above the site of bleeding, and it then applies a high amount of pressure to stop blood flow through the limb. 

Currently, tourniquets on the market have failure rates as high as 84%. This became very real to me back in 2018, when I became aware of mass casualty incidents when I was a student. I became interested in how we can reimagine the conventional tourniquet and try to make it something that’s very user-friendly, much like an automated external defibrillator (AED). 

My team and I developed AutoTQ, which is an automated tourniquet. You press one button to wake it up and one button to inflate it. It guides you through the process of placing it above the site of bleeding on a limb, which is a leading cause of tourniquet failure and being able to effectively administer treatment to a patient that may bleed out. 
 

Tourniquet Failure Rates

Dr. Glatter: In terms of tourniquet failure, how often do standard tourniquets fail, like the CAT combat-type tourniquet? 

Ms. Herbst: Unfortunately, they fail very frequently. There are several studies that have been conducted to evaluate this. Many of them occur immediately after training. They found failure rates between 80% and 90% for the current conventional CAT tourniquet immediately after training, which is very concerning. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of failure, was it the windlass aspect of the tourniquet that failed? Or was it something related to the actual strap? Was that in any way detailed? 

Ms. Herbst: There are usually a few different failure points that have been found in the literature. One is placement. Many times, when you’re panicked, you don’t remember exactly how to place it. It should be placed high and tight above the bleed and not over a joint. 

The second problem is inadequate tightness. For a CAT tourniquet to be effective, you have to get it extremely tight on that first pull before the windlass is activated, and many times people don’t remember that in the stress of the moment. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of tourniquet application by your medics in the field, certainly the CAT-type device has been in existence for quite a while. Hannah’s proposing a new iteration of how to do this, which is automated and simple. What is your take on such a device? And how did you learn about Hannah’s device? 

Peter M. Antevy, MD: We’ve been training on tourniquets ever since the military data showed that there was an extreme benefit in using them. We’ve been doing training for many years, including our police officers. What we’ve noticed is that every time we gather everyone together to show them how to place a tourniquet — and we have to do one-on-one sessions with them — it’s not a device that they can easily put on. These are police officers who had the training last year. 

Like Hannah said, most of the time they have a problem unraveling it and understanding how to actually place it. It’s easier on the arm than it is on the leg. You can imagine it would be harder to place it on your own leg, especially if you had an injury. Then, they don’t tighten it well enough, as Hannah just mentioned. In order for a tourniquet to really be placed properly, it’s going to hurt that person. Many people have that tendency not to want to tighten it as much as they can. 

Having said that, how I got into all of this is because I’m the medical director for Coral Springs and Parkland, and unfortunately, we had the 2018 Valentine’s Day murders that happened where we lost 17 adults and kids. However, 17 people were saved that day, and the credit goes to our police officers who had tourniquets or chest seals on before those patients were brought out to EMS. Many lives were saved by the tourniquet. 

If you look at the Boston Marathon massacre and many other events that have happened, I believe — and I’ve always believed — that tourniquets should be in the glove box of every citizen. It should be in every school room. They should be in buildings along with the AED. 

In my town of Davie, we were the first in the country to add an ordinance that required a Stop the Bleed kit in the AED cabinet, and those were required by buildings of certain sizes. In order to get this lifesaving device everywhere, I think it has to be put into local ordinance and supported by states and by the national folks, which they are doing. 
 

Trials Are Underway

Dr. Glatter: In terms of adoption of such a device, it certainly has to go through rigorous testing and maybe some trials. Hannah, where are you at with vetting this in terms of any type of trial? Has it been compared head to head with standard tourniquets? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we’re currently doing large amounts of field testing. We’re doing testing on emergency vehicles and in the surgical setting with different customers. In addition, we’re running pilot studies at different universities and with different organizations, including the military, to make sure that this device is effective. We’re evaluating cognitive offloading of people. We’re hoping to start that study later this year. We’re excited to be doing this in a variety of settings. 

We’re also testing the quality of it in different environmental conditions and under different atmospheric pressure. We’re doing everything we can to ensure the device is safe and effective. We’re excited to scale and fill our preorders and be able to develop this and deliver it to many people. 

Dr. Glatter: I was wondering if you could describe the actual device. There’s a brain part of it and then, obviously, the strap aspect of it. I was curious about contamination and reusability issues. 

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question. One of the limitations of conventional tourniquets on the market is that they are single use, and often, it requires two tourniquets to stop a bleed, both of which have to be disposed of. 

With AutoTQ, we have a reusable component and a disposable component. I actually have one here that I can show you. We have a cover on it that says: Stop bleed, slide up and power on. You just pull this cover off and then you have a few simple commands. You have powering the device on. I’ll just click this button: Tighten strap above bleeding, then press inflate. It delivers audible instructions telling you exactly how to use the device. Then, you tighten it above your bleed on the limb, and you press the inflate button. Then it administers air into the cuff and stops the patient’s bleed. 
 

Tourniquet Conversion and Limb Salvage

Dr. Glatter: In terms of ischemia time, how can a device like this make it easier for us to know when to let the tourniquet down and allow some blood flow? Certainly, limb salvage is important, and we don’t want to have necrosis and so forth. 

Dr. Antevy: That’s a great question. The limb salvage rate when tourniquets have been used is 85%. When used correctly, you can really improve the outcomes for many patients. 

On the flip side of that, there’s something called tourniquet conversion. That’s exactly what you mentioned. It’s making sure that the tourniquet doesn’t stay on for too long of a time. If you can imagine a patient going to an outlying hospital where there’s no trauma center, and then that patient then has to be moved a couple hours to the trauma center, could you potentially have a tourniquet on for too long that then ends up causing the patient a bad outcome? The answer is yes.

I just had someone on my webinar recently describing the appropriate conversion techniques of tourniquets. You don’t find too much of that in the literature, but you really have to ensure that as you’re taking the tourniquet down, the bleeding is actually stopped. It’s not really recommended to take a tourniquet down if the patient was just acutely bleeding. 

However, imagine a situation where a tourniquet was put on incorrectly. Let’s say a patient got nervous and they just put it on a patient who didn’t really need it. You really have to understand how to evaluate that wound to be sure that, as you’re taking the tourniquet down slowly, the patient doesn’t rebleed again. 

There are two sides of the question, Rob. One is making sure it’s not on inappropriately. The second one is making sure it’s not on for too long, which ends up causing ischemia to that limb. 

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, does your device collect data on the number of hours or minutes that the tourniquet has been up and then automatically deflate it in some sense to allow for that improvement in limb salvage?

Ms. Herbst: That’s a great question, and I really appreciate your answer as well, Dr Antevy. Ischemia time is a very important and critical component of tourniquet use. This is something, when we were designing AutoTQ, that we took into high consideration. 

We found, when we evaluated AutoTQ vs a CAT tourniquet in a mannequin model, that AutoTQ can achieve cessation of hemorrhage at around 400 mm Hg of mercury, whereas CAT requires 700-800 mm Hg. Already our ischemia time is slightly extended just based on existing literature with pneumatic tourniquets because it can stop the bleed at a lower pressure, which causes less complications with the patient’s limb. 

There are different features that we build out for different customers, so depending on what people want, it is possible to deflate the tourniquet. However, typically, you’re at the hospital within 30 minutes. It’s quick to get them there, and then the physician can treat and take that tourniquet down in a supervised and controlled setting. 

Dr. Glatter: In terms of patients with obesity, do you have adjustable straps that will accommodate for that aspect? 

Ms. Herbst: Yes, we have different cuff sizes to accommodate different limbs.
 

Will AutoTQ Be Available to the Public?

Dr. Glatter: Peter, in terms of usability in the prehospital setting, where do you think this is going in the next 3-5 years? 

Dr. Antevy: I’ll start with the public safety sector of the United States, which is the one that is actually first on scene. Whether you’re talking about police officers or EMS, it would behoove us to have tourniquets everywhere. On all of my ambulances, across all of my agencies that I manage, we have quite a number of tourniquets. 

Obviously, cost is a factor, and I know that Hannah has done a great job of making that brain reusable. All we have to do is purchase the straps, which are effectively the same cost, I understand, as a typical tourniquet you would purchase. 

Moving forward though, however, I think that this has wide scalability to the public market, whether it be schools, office buildings, the glove box, and so on. It’s really impossible to teach somebody how to do this the right way, if you have to teach them how to put the strap on, tighten it correctly, and so on. If there was an easy way, like Hannah developed, of just putting it on and pushing a button, then I think that the outcomes and the scalability are much further beyond what we can do in EMS. I think there’s great value in both markets. 
 

The ‘AED of Bleeding’: Rechargeable and Reusable

Dr. Glatter: This is the AED of bleeding. You have a device here that has wide-scale interest, certainly from the public and private sector. 

Hannah, in terms of battery decay, how would that work out if it was in someone’s garage? Let’s just say someone purchased it and they hadn’t used it in 3 or 4 months. What type of decay are we looking at and can they rely on it? 

Ms. Herbst: AutoTQ is rechargeable by a USB-C port, and our battery lasts for a year. Once a year, you’ll get an email reminder that says: “Hey, please charge your AutoTQ and make sure it’s up to the battery level.” We do everything in our power to make sure that our consumers are checking their batteries and that they’re ready to go. 

Dr. Glatter: Is it heat and fire resistant? What, in terms of durability, does your device have? 

Ms. Herbst: Just like any other medical device, we come with manufacturer recommendations for the upper and lower bounds of temperature and different storage recommendations. All of that is in our instructions for use. 

Dr. Glatter: Peter, getting back to logistics. In terms of adoption, do you feel that, in the long term, this device will be something that we’re going to be seeing widely adopted just going forward? 

Dr. Antevy: I do, and I’ll tell you why. When you look at AED use in this country, the odds of someone actually getting an AED and using it correctly are still very low. Part of that is because it’s complicated for many people to do. Getting tourniquets everywhere is step No. 1, and I think the federal government and the Stop the Bleed program is really making that happen. 

We talked about ordinances, but ease of use, I think, is really the key. You have people who oftentimes have their child in cardiac arrest in front of them, and they won’t put two hands on their chest because they just are afraid of doing it. 

When you have a device that’s a tourniquet, that’s a single-button turn on and single-button inflate, I think that would make it much more likely that a person will use that device when they’re passing the scene of an accident, as an example. 

We’ve had many non–mass casualty incident events that have had tourniquets. We’ve had some media stories on them, where they’re just happening because someone got into a motor vehicle accident. It doesn’t have to be a school shooting. I think the tourniquets should be everywhere and should be easily used by everybody. 
 

Managing Pain 

Dr. Glatter: Regarding sedation, is there a need because of the pain involved with the application? How would you sedate a patient, pediatric or adult, who needs a tourniquet? 

Dr. Antevy: We always evaluate people’s pain. If the patient is an extremist, we’re just going to be managing and trying to get them back to life. Once somebody is stabilized and is exhibiting pain of any sort, even, for example, after we intubate somebody, we have to sedate them and provide them pain control because they have a piece of plastic in their trachea. 

It’s the same thing here for a tourniquet. These are painful, and we do have the appropriate medications on our vehicles to address that pain. Again, just simply the trauma itself is very painful. Yes, we do address that in EMS, and I would say most public agencies across this country would address pain appropriately. 
 

Training on Tourniquet Use

Dr. Glatter: Hannah, can you talk a little bit about public training types of approaches? How would you train a consumer who purchases this type of device?

Ms. Herbst: A huge part of our mission is making blood loss prevention and control training accessible to a wide variety of people. One way that we’re able to do that is through our online training platform. When you purchase an AutoTQ kit, you plug it into your computer, and it walks you through the process of using it. It lets you practice on your own limb and on your buddy’s limb, just to be able to effectively apply it. We think this will have huge impacts in making sure that people are prepared and ready to stop the bleed with AutoTQ. 

Dr. Glatter: Do you recommend people training once a month, in general, just to keep their skills up to use this? In the throes of a trauma and very chaotic situation, people sometimes lose their ability to think clearly and straightly. 

Ms. Herbst: One of the studies we’re conducting is a learning curve study to try to figure out how quickly these skills degrade over time. We know that with the windlass tourniquet, it degrades within moments of training. With AutoTQ, we think the learning curve will last much longer. That’s something we’re evaluating, but we recommend people train as often as they can. 

Dr. Antevy: Rob, if I can mention that there is a concept of just-in-time training. I think that with having the expectation that people are going to be training frequently, unfortunately, as many of us know, even with the AED as a perfect example, people don’t do that. 

Yes. I would agree that you have to train at least once a year, is what I would say. At my office, we have a 2-hour training that goes over all these different items once a year. 

The device itself should have the ability to allow you to figure out how to use it just in time, whether via video, or like Hannah’s device, by audio. I think that having both those things would make it more likely that the device be used when needed. 

People panic, and if they have a device that can talk to them or walk them through it, they will be much more likely to use it at that time.

 

Final Takeaways

Dr. Glatter: Any other final thoughts or a few pearls for listeners to take away? Hannah, I’ll start with you. 

Ms. Herbst: I’m very grateful for your time, and I’m very excited about the potential for AutoTQ. To me, it’s so exciting to see people preordering the device now. We’ve had people from school bus companies and small sports teams. I think, just like Dr Antevy said, tourniquets aren’t limited to mass casualty situations. Blood loss can happen anywhere and to anyone. 

Being able to equip people and serve them to better prepare them for this happening to themselves, their friends, or their family is just the honor of a lifetime. Thank you very much for covering the device and for having me today. 

Dr. Glatter: Of course, my pleasure. Peter? 

Dr. Antevy: The citizens of this country, and everyone who lives across the world, has started to understand that there are things that we expect from our people, from the community. We expect them to do CPR for cardiac arrest. We expect them to know how to use an EpiPen. We expect them to know how to use an AED, and we also expect them to know how to stop bleeding with a tourniquet. 

The American public has gotten to understand that these devices are very important. Having a device that’s easily used, that I can teach you in 10 seconds, that speaks to you — these are all things that make this product have great potential. I do look forward to the studies, not just the cadaver studies, but the real human studies. 

I know Hannah is really a phenom and has been doing all these things so that this product can be on the shelves of Walmart and CVS one day. I commend you, Hannah, for everything you’re doing and wishing you the best of luck. We’re here for you. 

Dr. Glatter: Same here. Congratulations on your innovative capability and what you’ve done to change the outcomes of bleeding related to penetrating trauma. Thank you so much.

Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. Hannah D. Herbst, BS, is a graduate of Florida Atlantic University, was selected for Forbes 30 Under 30, and is the founder/CEO of Golden Hour Medical. Peter M. Antevy, MD, is a pediatric emergency medicine physician and medical director for Davie Fire Rescue and Coral Springs–Parkland Fire Department in Florida. He is also a member of the EMS Eagles Global Alliance.



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

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) can predict which premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS) therapy. Women with BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–low tumors showed significant benefit from OFS, whereas those with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective-retrospective translational study using tumor tissue samples from 1,718 premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS.
• BCI testing was performed on RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, blinded to clinical data and outcomes.
• The primary endpoints were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), with a median follow-up time of 12 years.
• Settings spanned multiple centers internationally, and data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021, analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.71) and 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97), relative to tamoxifen alone.
• Patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not derive significant benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, -0.4%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70-1.53) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, -1.2%; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.54), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• In the ERBB2-negative subgroup, patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors experienced a 12-year absolute benefit of 13.2% in BCFI from exemestane plus OFS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) and 7.4% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93), compared with tamoxifen alone.
• BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P =.004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk cases of cancer than had not spread to nearly lymph nodes (N0 cancers), respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“This investigation suggests a potential clinical use of BCI(H/I) results, adding to their use to identify patients most likely to benefit from extended endocrine therapy, as proven in multiple studies, although in the extended endocrine validation studies, it was the BCI(H/I)-high group that derived the greatest benefit,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ruth M. O’Regan, MD, University of Rochester Department of Medicine in Rochester, New York. It was published online on August 15, in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s retrospective nature may introduce biases despite the prospective statistical analysis plan. The sample size for certain clinical subgroups might be too small to definitively confirm the predictive value of BCI(H/I) for OFS benefit. The generalizability of the findings may be limited due to the specific population studied. Further validation in other patient cohorts is necessary to confirm these findings.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. O’Regan disclosed receiving personal fees from Pfizer and Gilead DSMB, grants from Puma, and nonfinancial support from Novartis. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.