I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

More than two thirds of children with conjunctivitis received antibiotics within a day of their initial ambulatory care visit; however, follow-up visits and new antibiotic dispensations were rare regardless of treatment, suggesting that not receiving antibiotics may not lead to additional health care use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the frequency of topical antibiotic treatment and its association with subsequent health care use among commercially insured children with acute infectious conjunctivitis in the United States.
• This cohort study analyzed data from the 2021 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, including 44,793 children with conjunctivitis (median age, 5 years; 47% girls) and ambulatory care encounters.
• The primary exposure was a topical antibiotic prescription dispensed within 1 day of an ambulatory care visit, with outcomes assessed 2-14 days after the visit.
• The primary outcomes were ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis and same-day dispensation of a new topical antibiotic, and secondary outcomes included emergency department revisits and hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topical antibiotics were dispensed within a day of an ambulatory care visit in 69% of the cases; however, they were less frequently dispensed following visits to eye clinics (34%), for children aged 6-11 years (66%), and for those with viral conjunctivitis (28%).
• Ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis within 2 weeks occurred in only 3.2% of children who had received antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.99-1.25).
• Similarly, revisits with same-day dispensation of a new antibiotic were also rare (1.4%), with no significant association between antibiotic treatment and revisits (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.33).
• Hospitalizations for conjunctivitis occurred in 0.03% of cases, and emergency department revisits occurred in 0.12%, with no differences between children who received antibiotics and those who did not.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that antibiotics may not be associated with improved outcomes or change in subsequent health care use and are associated with adverse effects and antibiotic resistance, efforts to reduce overtreatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis are warranted,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel J. Shapiro, MD, MPH, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and published online on June 27, 2024, in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The major limitations of the study included the inability to distinguish scheduled visits from unscheduled revisits, incomplete clinical data such as rare complications of conjunctivitis, and the inability to confirm the accuracy of the coded diagnosis of infectious conjunctivitis, especially in children who did not receive a thorough eye examination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare receiving funding from any sources. One author reported receiving grants from several sources outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

More than two thirds of children with conjunctivitis received antibiotics within a day of their initial ambulatory care visit; however, follow-up visits and new antibiotic dispensations were rare regardless of treatment, suggesting that not receiving antibiotics may not lead to additional health care use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the frequency of topical antibiotic treatment and its association with subsequent health care use among commercially insured children with acute infectious conjunctivitis in the United States.
• This cohort study analyzed data from the 2021 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, including 44,793 children with conjunctivitis (median age, 5 years; 47% girls) and ambulatory care encounters.
• The primary exposure was a topical antibiotic prescription dispensed within 1 day of an ambulatory care visit, with outcomes assessed 2-14 days after the visit.
• The primary outcomes were ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis and same-day dispensation of a new topical antibiotic, and secondary outcomes included emergency department revisits and hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topical antibiotics were dispensed within a day of an ambulatory care visit in 69% of the cases; however, they were less frequently dispensed following visits to eye clinics (34%), for children aged 6-11 years (66%), and for those with viral conjunctivitis (28%).
• Ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis within 2 weeks occurred in only 3.2% of children who had received antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.99-1.25).
• Similarly, revisits with same-day dispensation of a new antibiotic were also rare (1.4%), with no significant association between antibiotic treatment and revisits (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.33).
• Hospitalizations for conjunctivitis occurred in 0.03% of cases, and emergency department revisits occurred in 0.12%, with no differences between children who received antibiotics and those who did not.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that antibiotics may not be associated with improved outcomes or change in subsequent health care use and are associated with adverse effects and antibiotic resistance, efforts to reduce overtreatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis are warranted,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel J. Shapiro, MD, MPH, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and published online on June 27, 2024, in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The major limitations of the study included the inability to distinguish scheduled visits from unscheduled revisits, incomplete clinical data such as rare complications of conjunctivitis, and the inability to confirm the accuracy of the coded diagnosis of infectious conjunctivitis, especially in children who did not receive a thorough eye examination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare receiving funding from any sources. One author reported receiving grants from several sources outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

More than two thirds of children with conjunctivitis received antibiotics within a day of their initial ambulatory care visit; however, follow-up visits and new antibiotic dispensations were rare regardless of treatment, suggesting that not receiving antibiotics may not lead to additional health care use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the frequency of topical antibiotic treatment and its association with subsequent health care use among commercially insured children with acute infectious conjunctivitis in the United States.
• This cohort study analyzed data from the 2021 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, including 44,793 children with conjunctivitis (median age, 5 years; 47% girls) and ambulatory care encounters.
• The primary exposure was a topical antibiotic prescription dispensed within 1 day of an ambulatory care visit, with outcomes assessed 2-14 days after the visit.
• The primary outcomes were ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis and same-day dispensation of a new topical antibiotic, and secondary outcomes included emergency department revisits and hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topical antibiotics were dispensed within a day of an ambulatory care visit in 69% of the cases; however, they were less frequently dispensed following visits to eye clinics (34%), for children aged 6-11 years (66%), and for those with viral conjunctivitis (28%).
• Ambulatory care revisits for conjunctivitis within 2 weeks occurred in only 3.2% of children who had received antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.11; 95% CI, 0.99-1.25).
• Similarly, revisits with same-day dispensation of a new antibiotic were also rare (1.4%), with no significant association between antibiotic treatment and revisits (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.33).
• Hospitalizations for conjunctivitis occurred in 0.03% of cases, and emergency department revisits occurred in 0.12%, with no differences between children who received antibiotics and those who did not.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that antibiotics may not be associated with improved outcomes or change in subsequent health care use and are associated with adverse effects and antibiotic resistance, efforts to reduce overtreatment of acute infectious conjunctivitis are warranted,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Daniel J. Shapiro, MD, MPH, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and published online on June 27, 2024, in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The major limitations of the study included the inability to distinguish scheduled visits from unscheduled revisits, incomplete clinical data such as rare complications of conjunctivitis, and the inability to confirm the accuracy of the coded diagnosis of infectious conjunctivitis, especially in children who did not receive a thorough eye examination.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not declare receiving funding from any sources. One author reported receiving grants from several sources outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

CHEST

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

CHEST

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

CHEST

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

CHEST

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Interventional Procedures Section

More than 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidental CT scan-detected lung nodule annually. Advanced bronchoscopy, as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of these nodules, has evolved rapidly, incorporating a range of techniques and tools beyond CT scan-guided biopsies to assess peripheral lesions. The primary goal is to provide patients with accurate benign or malignant diagnoses. However, accurately determining the effectiveness of innovative technologies in providing a diagnosis remains challenging, in part due to limitations in study design and outcome reporting, along with the scarcity of comparative and randomized controlled studies.^1,2 Current literature shows significant variability in diagnostic yield definition, lacking generalizability.

CHEST

To address this issue, an official research statement by the American Thoracic Society and CHEST defines the diagnostic yield as “the proportion of all individuals undergoing the diagnostic procedure under evaluation in whom a specific malignant or benign diagnosis is established.”³ To achieve this measure, the numerator includes all patients with lung nodules in whom the result of a diagnostic procedure establishes a specific benign or malignant diagnosis that is readily sufficient to inform patient care without additional diagnostic workup, and the denominator should include all patients in whom the procedure was attempted or performed. This standardized definition is crucial for ensuring consistency across studies, allowing for comparison or pooling of results, enhancing the reliability of diagnostic yield data, and informing clinical decisions.

CHEST

References

1. Tanner NT, Yarmus L, Chen A, et al. Standard bronchoscopy with fluoroscopy vs thin bronchoscopy and radial endobronchial ultrasound for biopsy of pulmonary lesions: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Chest. 2018;154(5):1035-1043.

2. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2016;193(1):68-77.

3. Gonzalez AV, Silvestri GA, Korevaar DA, et al. Assessment of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy outcomes for peripheral lung lesions: a Delphi consensus definition of diagnostic yield and recommendations for patient-centered study designs. An official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians research statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209(6):634-646.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

CHEST

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

CHEST

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

CHEST

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

CHEST

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Nonrespiratory Sleep Section

There has been a recent interest in post–intensive care syndrome (PICS), as an increasing number of patients are surviving critical illness. PICS is defined as “new onset or worsening of impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health that arises after an ICU stay and persists beyond hospital discharge.¹ We know that poor sleep is a common occurrence in the ICU, which can contribute to cognitive impairment and could be due to various risk factors, including age, individual comorbidities, reason for admission, and ICU interventions.² Sleep impairment after hospital discharge is highly prevalent for up to 1 year after hospitalization.

CHEST

The most common sleep impairment described after hospital discharge from the ICU is insomnia, which coexists with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.³ When patients are seen in a post-ICU clinic, a multimodal strategy is needed for the treatment of insomnia, which includes practicing good sleep hygiene, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), and pharmacotherapy if indicated.

CHEST

References

1. Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive care syndrome: an overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90-92.

2. Zampieri FG, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(11):1558-1560.

3. Altman MT, Knauert MP, Pisani MA. Sleep disturbance after hospitalization and critical illness: a systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(9):1457-1468.

4. Edinger JD, Arnedt JT, Bertisch SM, et al. Behavioral and psychological treatments for chronic insomnia disorder in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(2):255-262.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

CHEST

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

CHEST

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

CHEST

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

CHEST

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a diverse group of relentlessly progressive fibroinflammatory disorders. Pharmacotherapy includes antifibrotics and immunosuppressants as foundational strategies to mitigate loss of lung function. There has been a growing interest in telomere length and its response to immunosuppression in the ILD community.

CHEST

Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences that “cap” chromosomes and protect against chromosomal shortening during cell replication. Genetic and environmental factors can lead to premature shortening of telomeres. Once a critical length is reached, the cell enters senescence. Short telomere length has been linked to rapid progression, worse outcomes, and poor response to immunosuppressants in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).

CHEST

References

1. Zhang D, Adegunsoye A, Oldham JM, et al. Telomere length and immunosuppression in non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J. 2023;62(5):2300441.

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

CHEST

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

CHEST

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

Before the spread of COVID-19, and increasingly during the pandemic, Ilana Krumm, MD, noticed a burgeoning focus on wellness for trainees and how to combat burnout in the medical space.

But Dr. Krumm also noticed that most of the existing programs focused on the individual level, rather than the system level. The onus was on the trainees to manage their wellness and burnout.

“I wanted to look at something that could be instituted at a systems level as opposed to putting all the burden of this wellness on the resident, as someone who already has a huge burden of work, stress, and time constraints as they try to learn their discipline,” Dr. Krumm said. “Asking them to meditate on their own time seemed very impractical.”

CHEST

1. Cultural precedent

Participants were encouraged to participate as little or as much as they wanted during the session. Despite some residents being less vocal during these discussions, every resident agreed that this type of session set an important cultural precedent in their program and acknowledged the value of a program that encouraged space for decompression and reflection.

2. Shared experiences

During this project, many residents experienced an increased sense of isolation, as COVID-19 precautions were stricter in the ICU. Having this protected time together allowed residents to discover their shared experiences and find comfort in them while feeling supported.

“A lot of residents commented that it was nice to know that others were going through this as well or that they were also finding this particular instance difficult,” Dr. Krumm said.
 

3. Ritual

At the opening of each hour-long session, participants were invited to light a candle and say aloud or think to themselves the name of a patient they had lost, had a hard time with, or cared for during their time in the ICU.

“Every single person pointed to that moment as meaningful and impactful,” Dr. Krumm said.

This ritual gave the residents time to center and have a common focus with their peers to think about patient stories that they were carrying with them.

“Maybe just incorporating a small moment like that, a point of reflection, could potentially have a big impact on the weight we carry as providers who care for [patients who are] critically ill,” Dr. Krumm said. “What I’ve learned from this project will make me a better leader in the ICU, not only in taking care of critically ill individuals but also in taking care of the team doing that work.”

Dr. Krumm credits the CHEST grant funding and subsequent research project with helping her join a highly competitive fellowship program at the University of California San Francisco, where she can continue to conduct research in the field of medical education.

“I am working closely with medical education faculty and peers to design new research studies and further establish myself in the field of medical education, leading to my ultimate goal of becoming a program director at a strong med-ed-focused program.”

This article was adapted from the Spring 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article—and to engage with the other content from this issue—visit chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

Support CHEST grants like this

Through clinical research grants, CHEST assists in acquiring vital data and clinically important results that can advance medical care. You can help support projects like this by making a gift to CHEST.

MAKE A GIFT » | LEARN ABOUT CHEST PHILANTHROPY »

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.

To continue to bring awareness to our members, we once again discuss this new add-on Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code finalized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for January 1, 2024. This add-on code is for new (99202-99205) and established (99212-99215) office visits. CMS created this add-on code to address the additional costs and resources associated with providing longitudinal care.

G2211 – Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management (E/M) associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition, or a complex condition (Add-on code; list separately in addition to office/outpatient (O/O) E/M visit, new or established)

The documentation should demonstrate the intent and need for ongoing care. Otherwise, no additional documentation is required. CMS pays $16.04 for each service (wRVU = 0.33). It may be reported each time the patient is seen, and there is currently no limit to how often it may be used. Also, there is no additional copay requirement for patients.

Do’s and don’ts

Do report in the following situations when longitudinal care is provided:

• The provider has or intends to have a long-term, ongoing relationship with the patient (ie, G2211 can be used for a new patient visit)
• Audio/video virtual visits
• May be reported with Prolonged Care Services G2212
• When advanced practice providers or physician colleagues in the same specialty practice see the patient (ie, if you see the patient for an urgent visit, but the patient is usually followed by your partner, you can still use G2211)
• When working with graduate medical education trainees (along with the -GC modifier), and as long as the conditions described in the description of G2211 are met

Do NOT report in the following situations:

• If modifier -25 is appended to the E/M service when another service is provided on the same day (eg, pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk tests, immunization)
• Audio-only virtual visits, hospital, skilled nursing facility, or long-term acute care hospital
• If the patient is not expected to return for ongoing care
• If the reason for longitudinal care does not include a “single, serious condition or a complex condition” (eg, annual visits for a stable 6 mm lung nodule)

CMS expects that this will be billed with 38% of all E/M services initially and potentially up to 54% over time. We feel this is reimbursement for the work being done to care for our patients with single, serious, or complex conditions. Both Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans are expected to reimburse for this service. Whether other payers will do the same is unclear, but it will become clear with time and further negotiation at the local level. In the meantime, members are encouraged to report this code for all appropriate patient encounters.
 

Questions and answers — G2211

Question: What private insurances cover G2211?

Answer: As of March 1, 2024, four national payers have confirmed coverage of G2211:

• Cigna (Medicare Advantage only),
• Humana (commercial and Medicare Advantage),
• United Healthcare (commercial and Medicare Advantage), and
• Aetna (Medicare Advantage).

Question: What needs to be documented for G2211?

Answer: CMS states, “You must document the reason for billing the office and outpatient (O/O) and evaluation and management (E/M). The visits themselves would need to be medically reasonable and necessary for the practitioner to report G2211. In addition, the documentation would need to illustrate medical necessity of the O/O E/M visit. We [CMS] haven’t required additional documentation.”

American Thoracic Society (ATS) and CHEST also recommend including a detailed assessment and plan for the visit, as well as any follow-up. The complexity of the visit should be clear in your documentation to support the medical necessity for reporting the G2211.
 

Question: How can a provider show that a new patient visit (99202-99205) is part of continuing care?

Answer: The treating practitioner should make sure their documentation supports their intent to provide ongoing care to the patient. Establishing such intent goes beyond a statement that the provider plans to provide ongoing care or schedule a follow-up visit. The circumstances of the visit should support the extra work involved in becoming the focal point of the patient’s care or providing ongoing care for a serious or complex condition.

Question: Dr. Red works at a primary care practice, is the focal point for a patient’s care, and has reported G2211. If Dr. Yellow, who is in the same specialty, or Mr. Green, a nurse practitioner, is covering for Dr. Red, and the patient comes in for a visit, can they report G2211 for that visit?

Answer: Yes. The same specialty/same provider rules would apply in this situation. But remember that Dr. Yellow’s or Mr. Green’s documentation for that encounter must support the code.

Question: Can a resident report G2211 under the primary care exemption?

Answer: Yes, according to CMS staff, so long as the service and the documentation meet all the requirements for the exemption and the visit complexity code. For example, the resident can only report low-level E/M codes, and the resident must be “the focal point for that person’s care.”

Question: Are there frequency limits for how often we can report G2211, either for a single patient in a given time period or by a provider or a practice?

Answer: Not at this time, but make sure your providers are following the rules for reporting the code. “There’s got to be documentation that suggests why the practitioner believes they are treating the patient on this long-standing, longitudinal trajectory, and we’ll be able to see how that interaction is happening,” senior CMS staff said. CMS staff further issued a subtle warning to providers by reminding them that CMS has a very strong integrity program. Your practice can avoid problems with thorough training, frequent chart review, and encouraging the team to ask questions until you feel that everyone is comfortable with the code.

Question: Are there any limits on the specialties that can report the code? Is it just for primary care providers?

Answer: No. Remember that a provider who is managing a single serious or complex condition can also report the code. But CMS expects the documentation to support the ongoing nature of the treatment. If a patient sees a provider as a one-off encounter, perhaps to manage an acute problem, that visit wouldn’t qualify. But if the provider clearly documents that they are actively managing the patient’s condition, the encounters could qualify.

Question: Will CMS issue a list of conditions that meet the code’s serious or complex condition requirement?

Answer: CMS has included the examples of HIV and sickle cell anemia in existing guidance, and it plans to issue a few more examples “that help folks understand what is expected.” However, it won’t be a complete list of every condition that might qualify.

Originally published in the May 2023 issue of the American Thoracic Society’s ATS Coding & Billing Quarterly. Republished with permission from the American Thoracic Society.