Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”

The newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway looks like a set of guidelines, but it’s really something unique. As attendees learned at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) regional meeting in Detroit in June, the clinical pathways are designed to point the way toward a standard ideal treatment for the majority of cases, not just to suggest a number of possible options.

“Pathways will always offer one scenario. They try to get oncologists to practice in a similar fashion so things can be managed more uniformly,” Michael M. Goodman, MD, told Federal Practitioner prior to the AVAHO meeting that was focused on prostate cancer care. Goodman is an associate professor of medicine with Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and helped develop the VA genitourinary oncology pathways.

“The overall goal is not just to standardize care as much as possible but also to synthesize the best and most cost-effective practices,” Goodman said. For example, “If you have 5 different therapies, and they all have about the same efficacy and safety, and 1 is less costly than the other 4, then it would make sense to choose that.”

The VA has offered pathways for multiple types of cancer since 2021, and the pathway for prostate cancer is among the most comprehensive. The VA system updated the pathway in March 2024, is available online both via SharePoint and externally.

“It goes through the entire gamut from screening, diagnosis, and management to end of life,” Goodman explained. Multiple disciplines, from primary care and surgery to genetics and imaging, can rely on the pathway to assist decision-making.

In terms of screening, the pathway offers a flow map guiding the screening choices. In patients aged ≤ 54 years, only certain high-risk groups, such as African Americans and those with a family history of prostate cancer, should be screened. From ages 54 to 69 years, patients should be consulted as part of a shared decision making process, while screening is not recommended for patients aged ≥ 70 years.

Pathway flow maps also provide information about diagnostic standards, evaluation of the newly diagnosed, risk stratification, molecular testing, and end-of-life care.

Goodman says the pathway is now integrated into the VA electronic health record system via a template so clinicians can easily document pathway use. This allows the VA to track the use of the pathways locally, regionally, and nationally track the use of the pathways.

Clinicians are not mandated to follow every step in the pathway, but Goodman said the goal is > 80% adherence. If clinicians follow the standards, he said, “you’re considering efficacy, safety, and cost for that veteran.”

Prospective data suggests that adherence to the pathway eliminates certain disparities. African American veterans, for example, are as well-represented or even better represented than White veterans in prostate cancer care when pathways are followed.

Why might clinicians veer from the pathway? “If you’re seeing a patient who was treated in the community with drug X, but drug Y is chosen by the pathway, you can carry on with the previous care.” Alternatively, in some cases, patients may not tolerate the pathway standard, Goodman noted.

Goodman reports that he consults the pathway every day. “It’s helped standardize the care I provide to ensure there’s no gaps in how I’m treating patients.”

Time was—recent time, that is—sailors had two chances to pass a physical fitness assessment (PFA). Failing the first meant no promotion. Failing the second: No career. They could neither be promoted nor reenlist.

That’s changed; as of this month, the Navy now allows the sailor’s commanding officer to decide whether the sailor gets to go on, even after failing a second test.

In an administrative letter, Vice Adm. Rick Cheeseman, chief of naval personnel, said, "Commanding officers can now evaluate a sailor's physical readiness progress or lack of progress in performance evaluations, giving them the ability to manage risk, recognize earnest effort, and best take care of their people.”

According to the new policy, sailors who fail any PFA no longer need to have it noted on their annual evaluation (although they still may not advance until they pass another test). Enlisted sailors who fail a second consecutive PFA are no longer required to receive the lowest possible score in the "Military Bearing/Professionalism" category and are not denied the ability to reenlist.

In assessing eligibility for enlisted members, the memo states that commanders should consider a sailor’s ability to perform the functions of their rate without physical or medical limitation at sea, shore or isolated duty; their overall ability to contribute to Navy missions; and the likelihood of improvement in meeting PFA standards within the next 12 months.

“Building the bodies of great people,” Cheeseman wrote, “is more than annual (or biannual) testing and includes ensuring healthy food, adequate sleep, opportunities to exercise (especially outside), and medical readiness.”  

According to a report by Military.com, “critics have argued that many of the changes were the Navy relaxing its standards in the face of a challenging recruiting environment and an increasingly overweight population of Americans.” However, Navy data provided in November indicate that the number of sailors failing PFAs has remained very low. In 2017, nearly 98% of sailors passed the PFA, and 95.1% passed the first post-pandemic PFA in 2022.

The PFA policy changes are part of the Navy’s Culture of Excellence 2.0, initiated earlier this year, Cheeseman says. This initiative “charges our leaders to build great people, great leaders, and great teams: their minds, bodies, and spirits, eliminating barriers wherever possible.  In response, we are modernizing our PFA policy to acknowledge our diverse population, increase sailor trust, and enhance quality of service.”

Time was—recent time, that is—sailors had two chances to pass a physical fitness assessment (PFA). Failing the first meant no promotion. Failing the second: No career. They could neither be promoted nor reenlist.

That’s changed; as of this month, the Navy now allows the sailor’s commanding officer to decide whether the sailor gets to go on, even after failing a second test.

In an administrative letter, Vice Adm. Rick Cheeseman, chief of naval personnel, said, "Commanding officers can now evaluate a sailor's physical readiness progress or lack of progress in performance evaluations, giving them the ability to manage risk, recognize earnest effort, and best take care of their people.”

According to the new policy, sailors who fail any PFA no longer need to have it noted on their annual evaluation (although they still may not advance until they pass another test). Enlisted sailors who fail a second consecutive PFA are no longer required to receive the lowest possible score in the "Military Bearing/Professionalism" category and are not denied the ability to reenlist.

In assessing eligibility for enlisted members, the memo states that commanders should consider a sailor’s ability to perform the functions of their rate without physical or medical limitation at sea, shore or isolated duty; their overall ability to contribute to Navy missions; and the likelihood of improvement in meeting PFA standards within the next 12 months.

“Building the bodies of great people,” Cheeseman wrote, “is more than annual (or biannual) testing and includes ensuring healthy food, adequate sleep, opportunities to exercise (especially outside), and medical readiness.”  

According to a report by Military.com, “critics have argued that many of the changes were the Navy relaxing its standards in the face of a challenging recruiting environment and an increasingly overweight population of Americans.” However, Navy data provided in November indicate that the number of sailors failing PFAs has remained very low. In 2017, nearly 98% of sailors passed the PFA, and 95.1% passed the first post-pandemic PFA in 2022.

The PFA policy changes are part of the Navy’s Culture of Excellence 2.0, initiated earlier this year, Cheeseman says. This initiative “charges our leaders to build great people, great leaders, and great teams: their minds, bodies, and spirits, eliminating barriers wherever possible.  In response, we are modernizing our PFA policy to acknowledge our diverse population, increase sailor trust, and enhance quality of service.”

Time was—recent time, that is—sailors had two chances to pass a physical fitness assessment (PFA). Failing the first meant no promotion. Failing the second: No career. They could neither be promoted nor reenlist.

That’s changed; as of this month, the Navy now allows the sailor’s commanding officer to decide whether the sailor gets to go on, even after failing a second test.

In an administrative letter, Vice Adm. Rick Cheeseman, chief of naval personnel, said, "Commanding officers can now evaluate a sailor's physical readiness progress or lack of progress in performance evaluations, giving them the ability to manage risk, recognize earnest effort, and best take care of their people.”

According to the new policy, sailors who fail any PFA no longer need to have it noted on their annual evaluation (although they still may not advance until they pass another test). Enlisted sailors who fail a second consecutive PFA are no longer required to receive the lowest possible score in the "Military Bearing/Professionalism" category and are not denied the ability to reenlist.

In assessing eligibility for enlisted members, the memo states that commanders should consider a sailor’s ability to perform the functions of their rate without physical or medical limitation at sea, shore or isolated duty; their overall ability to contribute to Navy missions; and the likelihood of improvement in meeting PFA standards within the next 12 months.

“Building the bodies of great people,” Cheeseman wrote, “is more than annual (or biannual) testing and includes ensuring healthy food, adequate sleep, opportunities to exercise (especially outside), and medical readiness.”  

According to a report by Military.com, “critics have argued that many of the changes were the Navy relaxing its standards in the face of a challenging recruiting environment and an increasingly overweight population of Americans.” However, Navy data provided in November indicate that the number of sailors failing PFAs has remained very low. In 2017, nearly 98% of sailors passed the PFA, and 95.1% passed the first post-pandemic PFA in 2022.

The PFA policy changes are part of the Navy’s Culture of Excellence 2.0, initiated earlier this year, Cheeseman says. This initiative “charges our leaders to build great people, great leaders, and great teams: their minds, bodies, and spirits, eliminating barriers wherever possible.  In response, we are modernizing our PFA policy to acknowledge our diverse population, increase sailor trust, and enhance quality of service.”

MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

MILAN — Tirzepatide, a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, was more effective than was placebo in the resolution of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and in the improvement of fibrosis, according to the results of the phase 2 SYNERGY-NASH trial.

Specifically, 44%-62% of participants with MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis treated with 5-15 mg of tirzepatide achieved MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis compared with 10% on placebo; 51%-55% of those on tirzepatide achieved at least one stage of fibrosis improvement without worsening of MASH compared with 30% on placebo. Tirzepatide also led to weight loss.

The study (Abstract LBO-001) was presented at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024 by Rohit Loomba, MD, professor of medicine, NAFLD Research Center, University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“The results are clinically meaningful,” Dr. Loomba said in an interview. 

University of California, San Diego

Both of the endpoints — improvements in MASH resolution and fibrosis — are considered approvable endpoints for MASH therapeutic development, and therefore, increase the likelihood of success of using such a strategy in a phase 3 setting, Dr. Loomba said.
 

MASH Resolution, No Worsening of Fibrosis

The dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned a total of 190 participants to receive once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. Participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH and stage F2 or F3 (moderate or severe) fibrosis. 

Overall, approximately 42% of participants had F2 fibrosis and over 57% had F3 fibrosis. The proportion of F3 fibrosis was numerically higher in the placebo (64.6%) and 5-mg tirzepatide (63.8%) groups. 

The mean age of the study cohort was 54 years; 57% were female, 86% were White, and 36% were Hispanic; the mean body mass index was 36; 58% had type 2 diabetes; and A1c was 6.5. NAFLD activity score (NAS) was 5.3. Baseline noninvasive test results were consistent with the study population of MASH with F2/F3 fibrosis and NAS ≥ 4. 

The primary endpoint was resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was an improvement (decrease) of at least one fibrosis stage without worsening of MASH. Other secondary endpoints included a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with ≤ 1-point decrease in two or more NAS components.

A total of 157 participants (83%) underwent liver biopsies at week 52, providing results for the current analysis. 

Among tirzepatide-treated patients, 43.6% in the 5-mg group, 55.5% in the 10-mg group, and 62.4% in the 15-mg group met the criteria for resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis compared with  10% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all three comparisons). 

Fibrosis improved by at least one stage without worsening of MASH in 54.9% of participants in the 5-mg tirzepatide group, 51.3% in the 10-mg tirzepatide group, and 51.0% in the 15-mg tirzepatide group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group (P < .001 for all risk differences with placebo). 

Changes in NAS and subscores for the individual components of NAS, including steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning, were also seen in participants on tirzepatide. 

The researchers used a composite endpoint of a ≥ 2-point decrease in NAS with a ≥ 1-point decrease in at least two NAS components. Of the tirzepatide-treated groups, 71.7%,78.3%, and 76.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg groups, respectively, met this endpoint compared with 36.7% in placebo. 

Imaging of liver fat with MRI-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) showed reductions from baseline of -45.7, -41.3, -57.0 in participants on 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide, respectively. Differences from placebo were all statistically significant. 

Percentage of body weight change from baseline was -10.7%, -13.3%, and -15.6% in the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg tirzepatide groups, respectively, compared with weight loss of -0.8% in the placebo group. 

“Tirzepatide led to significant weight loss in both patients with diabetes and those without diabetes,” reported Dr. Loomba. 

There were more adverse events in patients on tirzepatide (92.3%) compared with patients on placebo (83.3%). 

“The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature, with 96% of them mild to moderate in severity,” said Dr. Loomba. “Discontinuations occurred in 4.2% of participants, which was similar between patients on tirzepatide and those on placebo.”

He pointed out that the safety profile of tirzepatide in a MASH population “was generally similar to that observed in the phase 3 trials of type 2 diabetes and obesity.”

Incidence of serious adverse events was also similar at 6.3% for participants on tirzepatide vs 6.2% for those on placebo; 2.8% on tirzepatide and 4.2% on placebo progressed to cirrhosis. There was no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. 
 

‘Convincing Results’

Commenting on the study, co-moderator Sven Francque, MD, hepatologist and head of department at the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium, said that the study was in a relatively “severe” patient population, which was one of its strengths. 

“These are convincing results in terms of MASH resolution, showing a strong response and dose-dependence,” he said. 

Dr. Francque

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The AGA Research Foundation plays an important role in medical research by providing grants to talented scientists at a critical time in their career. AGA’s flagship award is the Research Scholar Award (RSA), which provides career development support for young investigators in gastroenterology and hepatology research.

“The AGA Research Scholar Award will have a significant impact on my career,” said Dr. Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, 2024 AGA Research Scholar Award grant recipient, and a gastroenterologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “I aspire to lead a laboratory studying the impact of the microbiome on human gastroenterological diseases. Our lab will focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying how microbes activate gut signaling. The AGA Research Foundation grant will support my transition to independence and build key capacities that will be the foundation of my future lab.”

Boston Children&#039;s Hospital

Funded by the generosity of donors, the AGA Research Foundation’s research award program ensures that AGA is building a community of researchers whose work serves the greater community and benefits all our patients.

By joining other AGA members in supporting the AGA Research Foundation, you will ensure that young researchers have opportunities to continue their life-saving work. Your tax-deductible contribution supports the foundation’s research award program, including the RSA, which ensures that studies are funded, discoveries are made and patients are treated.

Learn more or make a contribution at www.foundation.gastro.org.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Philips Respironics Inc. has issued updated instructions for the use of its OmniLab Advanced+ (OLA+) Ventilator because of its demonstrated failure in the ventilator inoperative alarm that can cause an interruption or loss of therapy, according to a recall statement from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The OLA+ Ventilator is designed for use by individuals with obstructive sleep apnea, breathing problems, and mixed apnea and is approved for children aged 7 years and older, as well as adults.

The recall does not involve removal of the devices from where they are used or sold but does update the instructions for use, and its use without following the updated instructions could result in serious injury or death, according to the statement.

Following an alarm failure, the device may fail in one of two ways: By entering a ventilator inoperative state after three reboots within 24 hours (with no therapy and audible and visual alarms present) or by entering a ventilator inoperative state without rebooting first.

According to the statement, the alarm issue may be corrected with a software patch, available from Philips, or the company will offer a replacement device for patients until the affected devices are repaired. The statement updates an April 1, 2024, urgent recall from Philips urging the immediate removal of a patient from an OLA+ Ventilator and connecting them to alternative ventilation if possible if the ventilator’s inoperative alarm occurs.

The device failures may cause interruption or loss of therapy with effects including anxiety, confusion/disorientation, changes in respiratory rate, dyspnea, tachycardia, respiratory failure, and even death in especially vulnerable individuals. One death and 15 injuries have been reported as a result of the alarm failure, according to the FDA.

US customers can contact Philips Respironics Inc. at 1-800-345-6443 or [email protected] with questions, according to the FDA, and clinicians and patients may report adverse reactions or other problems with the devices to MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is a great day when a patient shows up at clinical appointment already motivated to make lifestyle behavior changes. Often, they have been inspired by health information they consumed elsewhere, such as from a book, movie, documentary, TV show, a friend, or something out in the community.

Currently, one of the more public representations of health and longevity promotion is Blue Zones. The organization, named for specific areas of the world — the so-called blue zones, where people experience less disease and live longer lives — has created considerable public awareness for healthy living. Today, there are more than 75 Blue Zones Project communities across the United States, where community leaders, businesses, organizations, and citizens collaborate to make healthier choices the easier choices. A recent Netflix special, Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones, further propelled blue zones into the public consciousness.

For clinicians trained in lifestyle medicine, Blue Zones’ consumer awareness is an opportunity. There is considerable crossover between the lifestyle habits advocated by Blue Zones, known as the Power9, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine. The Blue Zones emphasis on “plant-slant” diet, natural movement, purpose and contribution, downshifting, and family and community intersect with the lifestyle medicine pillars of whole-food, plant-predominant eating patterns, regular physical activity, stress management, restorative sleep, and positive social connections. Both Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine share a goal of creating healthier and stronger individuals and communities.

For those reasons, it made perfect sense that Blue Zones and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) recently announced a partnership to synergize both organizations’ strengths and resources. Among other things, the collaboration will establish a new certification status of Blue Zones–Certified Physician or Blue Zones–Certified Healthcare Professional, available in 2025 exclusively to clinicians who already are or become certified in lifestyle medicine.

Because of Blue Zones’ considerable consumer awareness, physicians and other health professionals who earn the certification will stand out to potential patients as clinicians with the training and knowledge to help them make sustainable lifestyle behavior changes. A challenging part of any clinician’s job is educating and convincing patients on the proven health benefits of lifestyle behavior change within the time restraints of a routine clinical visit. Patients familiar with Blue Zones are more likely to arrive already interested in changing lifestyle behavior, and clinicians should have the skills to help them achieve their goals.

In addition, community infrastructure developed through Blue Zones that supports healthful lifestyle choices is significant for patients. Lack of resources in their home, work, and community environments is a common obstacle that patients cite when discussing lifestyle change with a clinician. Bicycle lanes for commuting, parks with exercise equipment, accessible healthy food options, and community events to facilitate positive social connections enhance lifestyle-medicine prescriptions. Workplaces, restaurants, places of worship, and grocery stores are examples of community stakeholders that collaborate in Blue Zones communities to promote healthy lifestyle decisions. Although lifestyle medicine clinicians can and do identify creative ways to support patients in communities without strong healthy choice infrastructure, the Blue Zones road map is a welcome companion.

The timing is right for this synthesis of Blue Zones and lifestyle medicine. As consumer interest in Blue Zones has risen, so has clinician interest in evidence-based lifestyle medicine. Since certification in lifestyle medicine began in 2017, almost 6700 physicians and other health professionals have become certified worldwide. More than 43,000 health care professionals have registered for ACLM’s complimentary lifestyle and food-as-medicine courses highlighted by the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. 

What if more patients came to us motivated to make lifestyle changes because of awareness infused in their work and supported in their surrounding community? Matching lifestyle medicine certification with Blue Zone communities equips clinicians to help these patients achieve what they really want: to live longer and better.

Dr. Collings is Director of Lifestyle Medicine, Silicon Valley Medical Development, and Past President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Mountain View, California. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

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

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

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

“You had to pay the fee, or the doctor wasn’t going to see you anymore.”

That was the takeaway for Terri Marroquin of Midland, Texas, when her longtime physician began charging a membership fee in 2019. She found out about the change when someone at the physician’s front desk pointed to a posted notice.

At first, she stuck with the practice; in her area, she said, it is now tough to find a primary care doctor who doesn’t charge an annual membership fee from $350 to $500.

But last year, Ms. Marroquin finally left to join a practice with no membership fee where she sees a physician assistant rather than a doctor. “I had had enough. The concierge fee kept going up, and the doctor’s office kept getting nicer and nicer,” she said, referring to the décor.

With the national shortage of primary care physicians reaching 17,637 in 2023 and projected to worsen, more Americans are paying for the privilege of seeing a doctor — on top of insurance premiums that cover most services a doctor might provide or order. Many people seeking a new doctor are calling a long list of primary care practices only to be told they’re not taking new patients.

“Concierge medicine potentially leads to disproportionately richer people being able to pay for the scarce resource of physician time and crowding out people who have lower incomes and are sicker,” said Adam Leive, PhD, lead author of a 2023 study on concierge medicine and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Leive’s research showed no decrease in mortality for concierge patients compared with similar patients who saw nonconcierge physicians, suggesting concierge care may not notably improve some health outcomes.

A 2005 study showed concierge physicians had smaller proportions of patients with diabetes than their nonconcierge counterparts and provided care for fewer Black and Hispanic patients.

There’s little reliable data available on the size of the concierge medicine market. But one market research firm projects that concierge medicine revenue will grow about 10.4% annually through 2030. About 5,000 to 7,000 physicians and practices provide concierge care in the United States, most of whom are primary care providers, according to Concierge Medicine Today. (Yes, the burgeoning field already has a trade publication.)

The concierge pitch is simple: More time with your doctor, in-person or remotely, promptly and at your convenience. With many primary care physicians caring for thousands of patients each in appointments of 15 minutes or less, some people who can afford the fee say they feel forced to pay it just to maintain adequate access to their doctor.

As primary care providers convert to concierge medicine, many patients could face the financial and health consequences of a potentially lengthy search for a new provider. With fewer physicians in nonconcierge practices, the pool available to people who can’t or won’t pay is smaller. For them, it is harder to find a doctor.

Concierge care models vary widely, but all involve paying a periodic fee to be a patient of the practice.

These fees are generally not covered by insurance nor payable with a tax-advantaged flexible spending account or health savings account. Annual fees range from $199 for Amazon’s One Medical (with a discount available for Prime members) to low four figures for companies like MDVIP and SignatureMD that partner with physicians, to $10,000 or more for top-branded practices like Massachusetts General Hospital’s.

Many patients are exasperated with the prospect of pay-to-play primary care. For one thing, under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover a variety of preventive services without a patient paying out of pocket. “Your annual physical should be free,” said Caitlin Donovan, a spokesperson for the National Patient Advocate Foundation. “Why are you paying $2,000 for it?”

Liz Glatzer felt her doctor in Providence, Rhode Island, was competent but didn’t have time to absorb her full health history. “I had double mastectomy 25 years ago,” she said. “At my first physical, the doctor ran through my meds and whatever else, and she said, ‘Oh, you haven’t had a mammogram.’ I said, ‘I don’t have breasts to have mammography.’ ”

In 2023, after repeating that same exchange during her next two physicals, Ms. Glatzer signed up to pay $1,900 a year for MDVIP, a concierge staffing service that contracts with her new doctor, who is also a friend’s husband. In her first couple of visits, Ms. Glatzer’s new physician took hours to get to know her, she said.

For the growing numbers of Americans who can’t or won’t pay when their doctor switches to concierge care, finding new primary care can mean frustration, delayed or missed tests or treatments, and fragmented health care.

“I’ve met so many patients who couldn’t afford the concierge services and needed to look for a new primary care physician,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, director of the Robert Graham Center and a practicing family physician. Separating from a doctor who’s transitioning to concierge care “breaks the continuity with the provider that we know is so important for good health outcomes.” .

That disruption has consequences. “People don’t get the preventive services that they should, and they use more expensive and inefficient avenues for care that could have otherwise been provided by their doctor,” said Abbie Leibowitz, chief medical officer at Health Advocate, a company that helps patients find care and resolve insurance issues.

What happens to patients who find themselves at loose ends when a physician transitions to concierge practice?

Patients who lose their doctors often give up on having an ongoing relationship with a primary care clinician. They may rely solely on a pharmacy-based clinic or urgent care center or even a hospital emergency department for primary care.

Some concierge providers say they are responding to concerns about access and equity by allowing patients to opt out of concierge care but stay with the practice group at a lower tier of service. This might entail longer waits for shorter appointments, fewer visits with a physician, and more visits with mid-level providers, for example.

Deb Gordon of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said she is searching for a new primary care doctor after hers switched to concierge medicine — a challenge that involves finding someone in her network who has admitting privileges at her preferred hospitals and is accepting new patients.

Ms. Gordon, who is codirector of the Alliance of Professional Health Advocates, which provides support services to patient advocates, said the practice that her doctor left has not assigned her a new provider, and her health plan said it was OK if she went without one. “I was shocked that they literally said, ‘You can go to urgent care.’ ”

Some patients find themselves turning to physician assistants and other mid-level providers. But those clinicians have much less training than physicians with board certification in family medicine or internal medicine and so may not be fully qualified to treat patients with complex health problems. “The expertise of physician assistants and nurse practitioners can really vary widely,” said Russell Phillips, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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