User login
Goodbye, finger sticks; hello, CGMs
Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.
CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.
CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.
In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.
Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.
I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.
DiabetesWisePro has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.
Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:
• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).
• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.
The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.
Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.
CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.
CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.
In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.
Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.
I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.
DiabetesWisePro has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.
Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:
• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).
• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.
The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.
Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.
CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.
CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.
In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.
Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.
I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.
DiabetesWisePro has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.
Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:
• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).
• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.
The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.
Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In new era of gene therapy, PCPs are ‘boots on the ground’
In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.
Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.
“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.
The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.
Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.
Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.
“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
Unknown side effects, new diseases
Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”
At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.
General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.
Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.
In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.
But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.
In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.
“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
Finding patients
Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.
Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.
But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.
Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.
Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.
Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.
Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.
“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.
The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”
Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.
But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.
The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”
Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
The whole patient
Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.
But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.
All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.
“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.
Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.
“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.
The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.
Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.
Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.
“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
Unknown side effects, new diseases
Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”
At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.
General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.
Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.
In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.
But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.
In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.
“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
Finding patients
Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.
Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.
But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.
Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.
Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.
Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.
Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.
“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.
The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”
Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.
But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.
The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”
Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
The whole patient
Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.
But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.
All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.
“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.
Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.
“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.
The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.
Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.
Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.
“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
Unknown side effects, new diseases
Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”
At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.
General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.
Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.
In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.
But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.
In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.
But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.
“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
Finding patients
Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.
Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.
But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.
Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.
A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.
Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.
Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.
Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.
“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.
The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”
Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.
But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.
The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”
Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
The whole patient
Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.
But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.
All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.
“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Brain fitness program’ may aid memory loss, concussion, ADHD
new research shows.
The program, which consists of targeted cognitive training and EEG-based neurofeedback, coupled with meditation and diet/lifestyle coaching, led to improvements in memory, attention, mood, alertness, and sleep.
The program promotes “neuroplasticity and was equally effective for patients with all three conditions,” program creator Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Patients with mild to moderate cognitive symptoms often see “remarkable” results within 3 months of consistently following the program, said Dr. Fotuhi, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, and medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.
“It actually makes intuitive sense that a healthier and stronger brain would function better and that patients of all ages with various cognitive or emotional symptoms would all benefit from improving the biology of their brain,” Dr. Fotuhi added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Reports.
Personalized program
The findings are based on 223 children and adults who completed the 12-week NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Program (NeuroGrow BFP), including 71 with ADHD, 88 with PCS, and 64 with memory loss, defined as diagnosed mild cognitive impairment or subjective cognitive decline.
As part of the program, participants undergo a complete neurocognitive evaluation, including tests for verbal memory, complex attention, processing speed, executive functioning, and the Neurocognitive Index.
They also complete questionnaires regarding sleep, mood, diet, exercise, and anxiety/depression, and they undergo quantitative EEG at the beginning and end of the program.
A comparison of before and after neurocognitive test scores showed that all three patient subgroups experienced statistically significant improvements on most measures, the study team reports.
After completing the program, 60%-90% of patients scored higher on cognitive tests and reported having fewer cognitive, sleep, and emotional symptoms.
In all subgroups, the most significant improvement was observed in executive functioning.
“These preliminary findings appear to show that multimodal interventions which are known to increase neuroplasticity in the brain, when personalized, can have benefits for patients with cognitive symptoms from a variety of neurological conditions,” the investigators wrote.
The study’s strengths include a large, community-based sample of patients of different ages who had disruptive symptoms and abnormalities as determined using objective cognitive tests whose progress was monitored by objective and subjective measures.
The chief limitation is the lack of a control or placebo group.
“Though it is difficult to find a comparable group of patients with the exact same profile of cognitive deficits and brain-related symptoms, studying a larger group of patients – and comparing them with a wait-list group – may make it possible to do a more definitive assessment of the NeuroGrow BFP,” the researchers noted.
Dr. Fotuhi said the “secret to the success” of the program is that it involves a full assessment of all cognitive and neurobehavioral symptoms for each patient. This allows for individualized and targeted interventions for specific concerns and symptoms.
He said there is a need to recognize that patients who present to a neurology practice with a single complaint, such as a problem with memory or attention, often have other problems, such as anxiety/depression, stress, insomnia, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, sleep apnea, or alcohol overuse.
“Each of these factors can affect their cognitive abilities and need a multimodal set of interventions in order to see full resolution of their cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Fotuhi said.
He has created a series of educational videos to demonstrate the program’s benefits.
The self-pay cost for the NeuroGrow BFP assessment and treatment sessions is approximately $7,000.
Dr. Fotuhi said all of the interventions included in the program are readily available at low cost.
He suggested that health care professionals who lack time or staff for conducting a comprehensive neurocognitive assessment for their patients can provide them with a copy of the Brain Health Index.
“Patients can then be instructed to work on the individual components of their brain health on their own – and measure their brain health index on a weekly basis,” Dr. Fotuhi said. “Private practices or academic centers can use the detailed information I have provided in my paper to develop their own brain fitness program.”
Not ready for prime time
Commenting on the study, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “nonpharmacologic interventions can help alleviate some of the symptoms associated with dementia.
“The current study investigates nonpharmacologic interventions in a small number of patients with ADHD, postconcussion syndrome, or memory loss. The researchers found improvements on most measures following the brain rehabilitation program.
“While this is interesting, more work is needed in larger, more diverse cohorts before these programs can be applied broadly. Nonpharmacologic interventions are a helpful tool that need to be studied further in future studies,” Dr. Griffin added.
Funding for the study was provided by the NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center. Dr. Fotuhi, the owner of NeuroGrow, was involved in data analysis, writing, editing, approval, and decision to publish. Dr. Griffin reported no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
The program, which consists of targeted cognitive training and EEG-based neurofeedback, coupled with meditation and diet/lifestyle coaching, led to improvements in memory, attention, mood, alertness, and sleep.
The program promotes “neuroplasticity and was equally effective for patients with all three conditions,” program creator Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Patients with mild to moderate cognitive symptoms often see “remarkable” results within 3 months of consistently following the program, said Dr. Fotuhi, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, and medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.
“It actually makes intuitive sense that a healthier and stronger brain would function better and that patients of all ages with various cognitive or emotional symptoms would all benefit from improving the biology of their brain,” Dr. Fotuhi added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Reports.
Personalized program
The findings are based on 223 children and adults who completed the 12-week NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Program (NeuroGrow BFP), including 71 with ADHD, 88 with PCS, and 64 with memory loss, defined as diagnosed mild cognitive impairment or subjective cognitive decline.
As part of the program, participants undergo a complete neurocognitive evaluation, including tests for verbal memory, complex attention, processing speed, executive functioning, and the Neurocognitive Index.
They also complete questionnaires regarding sleep, mood, diet, exercise, and anxiety/depression, and they undergo quantitative EEG at the beginning and end of the program.
A comparison of before and after neurocognitive test scores showed that all three patient subgroups experienced statistically significant improvements on most measures, the study team reports.
After completing the program, 60%-90% of patients scored higher on cognitive tests and reported having fewer cognitive, sleep, and emotional symptoms.
In all subgroups, the most significant improvement was observed in executive functioning.
“These preliminary findings appear to show that multimodal interventions which are known to increase neuroplasticity in the brain, when personalized, can have benefits for patients with cognitive symptoms from a variety of neurological conditions,” the investigators wrote.
The study’s strengths include a large, community-based sample of patients of different ages who had disruptive symptoms and abnormalities as determined using objective cognitive tests whose progress was monitored by objective and subjective measures.
The chief limitation is the lack of a control or placebo group.
“Though it is difficult to find a comparable group of patients with the exact same profile of cognitive deficits and brain-related symptoms, studying a larger group of patients – and comparing them with a wait-list group – may make it possible to do a more definitive assessment of the NeuroGrow BFP,” the researchers noted.
Dr. Fotuhi said the “secret to the success” of the program is that it involves a full assessment of all cognitive and neurobehavioral symptoms for each patient. This allows for individualized and targeted interventions for specific concerns and symptoms.
He said there is a need to recognize that patients who present to a neurology practice with a single complaint, such as a problem with memory or attention, often have other problems, such as anxiety/depression, stress, insomnia, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, sleep apnea, or alcohol overuse.
“Each of these factors can affect their cognitive abilities and need a multimodal set of interventions in order to see full resolution of their cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Fotuhi said.
He has created a series of educational videos to demonstrate the program’s benefits.
The self-pay cost for the NeuroGrow BFP assessment and treatment sessions is approximately $7,000.
Dr. Fotuhi said all of the interventions included in the program are readily available at low cost.
He suggested that health care professionals who lack time or staff for conducting a comprehensive neurocognitive assessment for their patients can provide them with a copy of the Brain Health Index.
“Patients can then be instructed to work on the individual components of their brain health on their own – and measure their brain health index on a weekly basis,” Dr. Fotuhi said. “Private practices or academic centers can use the detailed information I have provided in my paper to develop their own brain fitness program.”
Not ready for prime time
Commenting on the study, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “nonpharmacologic interventions can help alleviate some of the symptoms associated with dementia.
“The current study investigates nonpharmacologic interventions in a small number of patients with ADHD, postconcussion syndrome, or memory loss. The researchers found improvements on most measures following the brain rehabilitation program.
“While this is interesting, more work is needed in larger, more diverse cohorts before these programs can be applied broadly. Nonpharmacologic interventions are a helpful tool that need to be studied further in future studies,” Dr. Griffin added.
Funding for the study was provided by the NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center. Dr. Fotuhi, the owner of NeuroGrow, was involved in data analysis, writing, editing, approval, and decision to publish. Dr. Griffin reported no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
The program, which consists of targeted cognitive training and EEG-based neurofeedback, coupled with meditation and diet/lifestyle coaching, led to improvements in memory, attention, mood, alertness, and sleep.
The program promotes “neuroplasticity and was equally effective for patients with all three conditions,” program creator Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Patients with mild to moderate cognitive symptoms often see “remarkable” results within 3 months of consistently following the program, said Dr. Fotuhi, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, and medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Va.
“It actually makes intuitive sense that a healthier and stronger brain would function better and that patients of all ages with various cognitive or emotional symptoms would all benefit from improving the biology of their brain,” Dr. Fotuhi added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Reports.
Personalized program
The findings are based on 223 children and adults who completed the 12-week NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Program (NeuroGrow BFP), including 71 with ADHD, 88 with PCS, and 64 with memory loss, defined as diagnosed mild cognitive impairment or subjective cognitive decline.
As part of the program, participants undergo a complete neurocognitive evaluation, including tests for verbal memory, complex attention, processing speed, executive functioning, and the Neurocognitive Index.
They also complete questionnaires regarding sleep, mood, diet, exercise, and anxiety/depression, and they undergo quantitative EEG at the beginning and end of the program.
A comparison of before and after neurocognitive test scores showed that all three patient subgroups experienced statistically significant improvements on most measures, the study team reports.
After completing the program, 60%-90% of patients scored higher on cognitive tests and reported having fewer cognitive, sleep, and emotional symptoms.
In all subgroups, the most significant improvement was observed in executive functioning.
“These preliminary findings appear to show that multimodal interventions which are known to increase neuroplasticity in the brain, when personalized, can have benefits for patients with cognitive symptoms from a variety of neurological conditions,” the investigators wrote.
The study’s strengths include a large, community-based sample of patients of different ages who had disruptive symptoms and abnormalities as determined using objective cognitive tests whose progress was monitored by objective and subjective measures.
The chief limitation is the lack of a control or placebo group.
“Though it is difficult to find a comparable group of patients with the exact same profile of cognitive deficits and brain-related symptoms, studying a larger group of patients – and comparing them with a wait-list group – may make it possible to do a more definitive assessment of the NeuroGrow BFP,” the researchers noted.
Dr. Fotuhi said the “secret to the success” of the program is that it involves a full assessment of all cognitive and neurobehavioral symptoms for each patient. This allows for individualized and targeted interventions for specific concerns and symptoms.
He said there is a need to recognize that patients who present to a neurology practice with a single complaint, such as a problem with memory or attention, often have other problems, such as anxiety/depression, stress, insomnia, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, sleep apnea, or alcohol overuse.
“Each of these factors can affect their cognitive abilities and need a multimodal set of interventions in order to see full resolution of their cognitive symptoms,” Dr. Fotuhi said.
He has created a series of educational videos to demonstrate the program’s benefits.
The self-pay cost for the NeuroGrow BFP assessment and treatment sessions is approximately $7,000.
Dr. Fotuhi said all of the interventions included in the program are readily available at low cost.
He suggested that health care professionals who lack time or staff for conducting a comprehensive neurocognitive assessment for their patients can provide them with a copy of the Brain Health Index.
“Patients can then be instructed to work on the individual components of their brain health on their own – and measure their brain health index on a weekly basis,” Dr. Fotuhi said. “Private practices or academic centers can use the detailed information I have provided in my paper to develop their own brain fitness program.”
Not ready for prime time
Commenting on the study, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that “nonpharmacologic interventions can help alleviate some of the symptoms associated with dementia.
“The current study investigates nonpharmacologic interventions in a small number of patients with ADHD, postconcussion syndrome, or memory loss. The researchers found improvements on most measures following the brain rehabilitation program.
“While this is interesting, more work is needed in larger, more diverse cohorts before these programs can be applied broadly. Nonpharmacologic interventions are a helpful tool that need to be studied further in future studies,” Dr. Griffin added.
Funding for the study was provided by the NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center. Dr. Fotuhi, the owner of NeuroGrow, was involved in data analysis, writing, editing, approval, and decision to publish. Dr. Griffin reported no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE REPORTS
The sacred office space
Church architecture describes visually the idea of the sacred, which is a fundamental need of man.
– Mario Botta, Swiss architect
My parents are visiting the Holy See today – prima volta in Italia! My mom waited years for this. She isn’t meeting the Pope or attending Mass. Yet, in the Whatsapp pics they sent me, you can see tears well up as she experiences St. Peter’s Basilica. It’s a visceral response to what is just a building and a poignant example of the significance of spaces.
More than just appreciating an edifice’s grandeur or exquisiteness, we are wired to connect with spaces emotionally. Beautiful or significant buildings move us, they make us feel something. Churches, synagogues, or mosques are good examples. They combine spiritual and aesthetic allure. But so too do gorgeous hotels, Apple stores, and posh restaurants. We crave the richness of an environment experienced through our five senses. The glory of sunlight through stained glass, the smell of luxurious scent pumped into a lobby, the weight of a silky new iPhone in your hand. We also have a sixth sense, that feeling we get from knowing that we are standing in a sacred place. A physical space that connects us with something wider and deeper than ourselves.
Virtual may be the peak of convenience, but in-real-life is the pinnacle of experience. Patients will be inconvenienced and pay higher costs to experience their appointment in person. This should not be surprising. Contemplate this: Every year, millions of people will travel across the globe to stand before a wall or walk seven times around a stone building. And millions everyday will perambulate around an Apple Store, willingly paying a higher price for the same product they can buy for less elsewhere. The willingness to pay for certain experiences is remarkably high.
Every day when I cover patient messages, I offer some patients an immediate, free solution to their problem. Just today I exchanged emails with a patient thinking I had addressed her concern by reassuring her that it was a benign seborrheic keratosis. Done. She then replied, “Thanks so much, Dr. Benabio! I still would like to schedule an appointment to come in person.” So much for the efficiency of digital medicine.
Before dismissing these patients as Luddites, understand what they want is the doctor’s office experience. The sights, the smells, the sacredness of what happens here. It is no coincidence that the first clinics were temples. In ancient Greece and Rome, the sick and the gashed made pilgrimages to one of at least 300 Asclepieia, temples of healing. During the medieval period, monasteries doubled as housing for the sick until the church began constructing stand-alone hospitals, often in cross-shaped design with an altar in the middle (eventually that became the nurses station, but without the wine).
Patients entrust us with their lives and their loved ones’ lives and a visit takes on far more significance than a simple service transaction. Forty years on, I can recall visits to Dr. Bellin’s office. He saw pediatric patients out of his Victorian home office with broad, creaky hardwood floors, stained glass, and cast iron radiators. The scent of isopropyl soaked cotton balls and typewriter ink is unforgettable. Far from sterile, it was warm, safe. It was a sacred place, one for which we still sometimes drive by when doing the tour of where I grew up.
We shall forge ahead and continue to offer virtual channels to serve our patients just as any service industry. But don’t force them there. At the same time Starbucks has been building its digital app, it is also building Starbucks Reserve Roasteries. Immense cathedral edifices with warm woods and luxurious brass, the smell of roasting coffee and warm leather perfuming the air. It is where patrons will travel long distances and endure long waits to pay a lot more for a cup of coffee.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Church architecture describes visually the idea of the sacred, which is a fundamental need of man.
– Mario Botta, Swiss architect
My parents are visiting the Holy See today – prima volta in Italia! My mom waited years for this. She isn’t meeting the Pope or attending Mass. Yet, in the Whatsapp pics they sent me, you can see tears well up as she experiences St. Peter’s Basilica. It’s a visceral response to what is just a building and a poignant example of the significance of spaces.
More than just appreciating an edifice’s grandeur or exquisiteness, we are wired to connect with spaces emotionally. Beautiful or significant buildings move us, they make us feel something. Churches, synagogues, or mosques are good examples. They combine spiritual and aesthetic allure. But so too do gorgeous hotels, Apple stores, and posh restaurants. We crave the richness of an environment experienced through our five senses. The glory of sunlight through stained glass, the smell of luxurious scent pumped into a lobby, the weight of a silky new iPhone in your hand. We also have a sixth sense, that feeling we get from knowing that we are standing in a sacred place. A physical space that connects us with something wider and deeper than ourselves.
Virtual may be the peak of convenience, but in-real-life is the pinnacle of experience. Patients will be inconvenienced and pay higher costs to experience their appointment in person. This should not be surprising. Contemplate this: Every year, millions of people will travel across the globe to stand before a wall or walk seven times around a stone building. And millions everyday will perambulate around an Apple Store, willingly paying a higher price for the same product they can buy for less elsewhere. The willingness to pay for certain experiences is remarkably high.
Every day when I cover patient messages, I offer some patients an immediate, free solution to their problem. Just today I exchanged emails with a patient thinking I had addressed her concern by reassuring her that it was a benign seborrheic keratosis. Done. She then replied, “Thanks so much, Dr. Benabio! I still would like to schedule an appointment to come in person.” So much for the efficiency of digital medicine.
Before dismissing these patients as Luddites, understand what they want is the doctor’s office experience. The sights, the smells, the sacredness of what happens here. It is no coincidence that the first clinics were temples. In ancient Greece and Rome, the sick and the gashed made pilgrimages to one of at least 300 Asclepieia, temples of healing. During the medieval period, monasteries doubled as housing for the sick until the church began constructing stand-alone hospitals, often in cross-shaped design with an altar in the middle (eventually that became the nurses station, but without the wine).
Patients entrust us with their lives and their loved ones’ lives and a visit takes on far more significance than a simple service transaction. Forty years on, I can recall visits to Dr. Bellin’s office. He saw pediatric patients out of his Victorian home office with broad, creaky hardwood floors, stained glass, and cast iron radiators. The scent of isopropyl soaked cotton balls and typewriter ink is unforgettable. Far from sterile, it was warm, safe. It was a sacred place, one for which we still sometimes drive by when doing the tour of where I grew up.
We shall forge ahead and continue to offer virtual channels to serve our patients just as any service industry. But don’t force them there. At the same time Starbucks has been building its digital app, it is also building Starbucks Reserve Roasteries. Immense cathedral edifices with warm woods and luxurious brass, the smell of roasting coffee and warm leather perfuming the air. It is where patrons will travel long distances and endure long waits to pay a lot more for a cup of coffee.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
Church architecture describes visually the idea of the sacred, which is a fundamental need of man.
– Mario Botta, Swiss architect
My parents are visiting the Holy See today – prima volta in Italia! My mom waited years for this. She isn’t meeting the Pope or attending Mass. Yet, in the Whatsapp pics they sent me, you can see tears well up as she experiences St. Peter’s Basilica. It’s a visceral response to what is just a building and a poignant example of the significance of spaces.
More than just appreciating an edifice’s grandeur or exquisiteness, we are wired to connect with spaces emotionally. Beautiful or significant buildings move us, they make us feel something. Churches, synagogues, or mosques are good examples. They combine spiritual and aesthetic allure. But so too do gorgeous hotels, Apple stores, and posh restaurants. We crave the richness of an environment experienced through our five senses. The glory of sunlight through stained glass, the smell of luxurious scent pumped into a lobby, the weight of a silky new iPhone in your hand. We also have a sixth sense, that feeling we get from knowing that we are standing in a sacred place. A physical space that connects us with something wider and deeper than ourselves.
Virtual may be the peak of convenience, but in-real-life is the pinnacle of experience. Patients will be inconvenienced and pay higher costs to experience their appointment in person. This should not be surprising. Contemplate this: Every year, millions of people will travel across the globe to stand before a wall or walk seven times around a stone building. And millions everyday will perambulate around an Apple Store, willingly paying a higher price for the same product they can buy for less elsewhere. The willingness to pay for certain experiences is remarkably high.
Every day when I cover patient messages, I offer some patients an immediate, free solution to their problem. Just today I exchanged emails with a patient thinking I had addressed her concern by reassuring her that it was a benign seborrheic keratosis. Done. She then replied, “Thanks so much, Dr. Benabio! I still would like to schedule an appointment to come in person.” So much for the efficiency of digital medicine.
Before dismissing these patients as Luddites, understand what they want is the doctor’s office experience. The sights, the smells, the sacredness of what happens here. It is no coincidence that the first clinics were temples. In ancient Greece and Rome, the sick and the gashed made pilgrimages to one of at least 300 Asclepieia, temples of healing. During the medieval period, monasteries doubled as housing for the sick until the church began constructing stand-alone hospitals, often in cross-shaped design with an altar in the middle (eventually that became the nurses station, but without the wine).
Patients entrust us with their lives and their loved ones’ lives and a visit takes on far more significance than a simple service transaction. Forty years on, I can recall visits to Dr. Bellin’s office. He saw pediatric patients out of his Victorian home office with broad, creaky hardwood floors, stained glass, and cast iron radiators. The scent of isopropyl soaked cotton balls and typewriter ink is unforgettable. Far from sterile, it was warm, safe. It was a sacred place, one for which we still sometimes drive by when doing the tour of where I grew up.
We shall forge ahead and continue to offer virtual channels to serve our patients just as any service industry. But don’t force them there. At the same time Starbucks has been building its digital app, it is also building Starbucks Reserve Roasteries. Immense cathedral edifices with warm woods and luxurious brass, the smell of roasting coffee and warm leather perfuming the air. It is where patrons will travel long distances and endure long waits to pay a lot more for a cup of coffee.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
When did medicine become a battleground for everything?
Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.
When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.
Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’
Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.
This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.
But the pandemic fueled the fire. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
‘The people attacking are themselves victims’
The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.
The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.
Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”
In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.
“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”
Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
When politics and health care collide
“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”
In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.
It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.
In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.
Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”
The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.
Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
A turn in the pandemic
For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.
As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.
“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.
In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.
When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.
“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.
But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
The toll on health care professionals
By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.
“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.
At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.
A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”
Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”
All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.
The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.
“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
What comes next?
Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.
“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.
The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.
“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”
The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”
There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.
“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.
There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.
Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”
One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.
“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.
“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”
As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.
When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.
Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’
Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.
This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.
But the pandemic fueled the fire. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
‘The people attacking are themselves victims’
The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.
The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.
Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”
In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.
“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”
Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
When politics and health care collide
“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”
In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.
It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.
In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.
Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”
The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.
Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
A turn in the pandemic
For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.
As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.
“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.
In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.
When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.
“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.
But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
The toll on health care professionals
By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.
“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.
At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.
A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”
Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”
All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.
The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.
“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
What comes next?
Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.
“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.
The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.
“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”
The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”
There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.
“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.
There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.
Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”
One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.
“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.
“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”
As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.
When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.
Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’
Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.
This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.
But the pandemic fueled the fire. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
‘The people attacking are themselves victims’
The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.
The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.
Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”
In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.
“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”
Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
When politics and health care collide
“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”
In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.
It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.
In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.
Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”
The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.
Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
A turn in the pandemic
For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.
As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.
“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.
In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.
When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.
“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.
But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
The toll on health care professionals
By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.
“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.
At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.
A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”
Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”
All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.
The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.
“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
What comes next?
Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.
“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.
The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.
“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”
The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”
There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.
“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.
There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.
Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”
One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.
“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.
“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”
As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pneumococcal vaccine label adds injection-site risk
No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.
Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.
Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
Real-world finding
After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.
They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.
The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.
The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.
Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).
In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).
Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.
For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.
Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.
Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.
“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.
Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.
Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.
Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
Real-world finding
After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.
They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.
The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.
The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.
Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).
In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).
Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.
For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.
Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.
Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.
“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.
Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.
Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.
Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
Real-world finding
After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.
They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.
The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.
The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.
Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).
In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).
Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.
For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.
Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.
Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.
“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.
Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Want to add a new partner to your practice? Here’s what to consider
When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.
But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.
“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
The basics
Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.
“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”
Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?
It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.
- Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
- Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
- How will you split call and work hours?
- How will decision-making work?
- How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?
As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.
“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
It’s a slow process
Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.
Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.
“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
Consider professional help
If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.
Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.
A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.
You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
Takeaway
Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.
To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.
“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.
But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.
“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
The basics
Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.
“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”
Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?
It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.
- Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
- Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
- How will you split call and work hours?
- How will decision-making work?
- How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?
As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.
“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
It’s a slow process
Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.
Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.
“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
Consider professional help
If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.
Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.
A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.
You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
Takeaway
Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.
To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.
“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.
But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.
“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
The basics
Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.
“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”
Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?
It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.
- Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
- Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
- How will you split call and work hours?
- How will decision-making work?
- How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?
As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.
“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
It’s a slow process
Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.
Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.
“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
Consider professional help
If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.
Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.
A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.
You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
Takeaway
Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.
To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.
“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doc’s lawsuit tests new crackdown on noncompete clauses
In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.
David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However,
Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.
“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”
Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’
Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.
However, the tide has been turning against them.
About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.
For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.
Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions.
In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023.
Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.
Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”
The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
Impact on patients
The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.
State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.
However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”
For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.
David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However,
Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.
“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”
Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’
Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.
However, the tide has been turning against them.
About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.
For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.
Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions.
In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023.
Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.
Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”
The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
Impact on patients
The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.
State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.
However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”
For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.
David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However,
Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.
“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”
Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’
Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.
However, the tide has been turning against them.
About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.
For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.
Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions.
In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023.
Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.
Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”
The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
Impact on patients
The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.
State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.
However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.
The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”
For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Intensely pruritic rash
The history and findings in this case are consistent with atopic dermatitis (AD).
AD is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects more than 200 million people worldwide, including as many as 30% of children and 10% of adults. Although it is more common in children (and may persist into adulthood), approximately 1 in 4 adults with AD have adult-onset disease.
The etiology of AD is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors, including a weakened skin barrier, immune dysregulation, and abnormalities of the skin microbiome. AD is a member of the atopic triad (ie, AD, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and asthma), which may commence concurrently or in succession in what is referred to as the "atopic march."
The presentation of adult-onset AD may differ from that seen in children. For example, the most commonly reported body regions affected in adult-onset AD are the hands, eyelids, neck, and flexural surfaces of the upper limbs. In contrast, childhood-onset AD is less specific to body regions other than flexural areas. Xerosis is a prominent feature, and lichenification may be present. Some patients may have a rippled, brown macular ring around the neck, simulating the pigmentations seen in macular amyloid but due instead to postinflammatory melanin deposition. Pruritus is the most common and bothersome symptom associated with AD; patients may also experience anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.
Diminished quality of life, reduced productivity at work and school, and increased healthcare costs (hospitalizations, emergency visits, outpatient visits, and medications) have all been reported in patients with AD. Triggers for flare-ups vary among individuals; commonly reported triggers include physical or emotional stress, changes in temperature or humidity, sweating, allergens, and irritants.
AD is typically diagnosed clinically given the characteristic distribution of lesions in various age groups (infancy, childhood, and adult). Associated findings such as keratosis pilaris may help to facilitate the diagnosis. No biomarker for the diagnosis of AD has been found and laboratory testing is rarely necessary. However, a swab of infected skin may help to isolate a specific involved organism (eg, Staphylococcus or Streptococcus) and antibiotic sensitivity. Allergy and radioallergosorbent testing are not necessary to make the diagnosis. A swab for viral polymerase chain reaction may be beneficial to help identify superinfection with herpes simplex virus and identify a diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. Testing for serum IgE level can also be helpful for supporting the diagnosis of AD.
The management of AD includes trigger avoidance, daily skin care with application of emollients, anti-inflammatory therapy, and other complementary modalities. For mild or moderate AD, first-line treatment consists of topical anti-inflammatory ointments and creams, including topical corticosteroids, which are available in a broad range of potencies. Other topical medications include topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for patients aged ≥ 2 years), which may be particularly appropriate when there is concern for adverse events secondary to corticosteroid use; topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (crisaborole ointment for patients aged ≥ 3 months); and topical Janus kinase inhibitor (ruxolitinib cream for patients aged ≥ 12 years).
For patients with moderate to severe AD, or for those who are refractory to topical medications, treatment may include biologic therapy (dupilumab and tralokinumab for patients aged ≥ 6 months and ≥ 18 years, respectively), oral Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib and abrocitinib for patients ages ≥ 12 and ≥ 18 years, respectively), phototherapy (commonly narrow-band ultraviolet light type B treatment), and oral immunomodulators (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, and azathioprine). Combination therapy may be required for the long-term management of more severe AD.
William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
The history and findings in this case are consistent with atopic dermatitis (AD).
AD is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects more than 200 million people worldwide, including as many as 30% of children and 10% of adults. Although it is more common in children (and may persist into adulthood), approximately 1 in 4 adults with AD have adult-onset disease.
The etiology of AD is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors, including a weakened skin barrier, immune dysregulation, and abnormalities of the skin microbiome. AD is a member of the atopic triad (ie, AD, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and asthma), which may commence concurrently or in succession in what is referred to as the "atopic march."
The presentation of adult-onset AD may differ from that seen in children. For example, the most commonly reported body regions affected in adult-onset AD are the hands, eyelids, neck, and flexural surfaces of the upper limbs. In contrast, childhood-onset AD is less specific to body regions other than flexural areas. Xerosis is a prominent feature, and lichenification may be present. Some patients may have a rippled, brown macular ring around the neck, simulating the pigmentations seen in macular amyloid but due instead to postinflammatory melanin deposition. Pruritus is the most common and bothersome symptom associated with AD; patients may also experience anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.
Diminished quality of life, reduced productivity at work and school, and increased healthcare costs (hospitalizations, emergency visits, outpatient visits, and medications) have all been reported in patients with AD. Triggers for flare-ups vary among individuals; commonly reported triggers include physical or emotional stress, changes in temperature or humidity, sweating, allergens, and irritants.
AD is typically diagnosed clinically given the characteristic distribution of lesions in various age groups (infancy, childhood, and adult). Associated findings such as keratosis pilaris may help to facilitate the diagnosis. No biomarker for the diagnosis of AD has been found and laboratory testing is rarely necessary. However, a swab of infected skin may help to isolate a specific involved organism (eg, Staphylococcus or Streptococcus) and antibiotic sensitivity. Allergy and radioallergosorbent testing are not necessary to make the diagnosis. A swab for viral polymerase chain reaction may be beneficial to help identify superinfection with herpes simplex virus and identify a diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. Testing for serum IgE level can also be helpful for supporting the diagnosis of AD.
The management of AD includes trigger avoidance, daily skin care with application of emollients, anti-inflammatory therapy, and other complementary modalities. For mild or moderate AD, first-line treatment consists of topical anti-inflammatory ointments and creams, including topical corticosteroids, which are available in a broad range of potencies. Other topical medications include topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for patients aged ≥ 2 years), which may be particularly appropriate when there is concern for adverse events secondary to corticosteroid use; topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (crisaborole ointment for patients aged ≥ 3 months); and topical Janus kinase inhibitor (ruxolitinib cream for patients aged ≥ 12 years).
For patients with moderate to severe AD, or for those who are refractory to topical medications, treatment may include biologic therapy (dupilumab and tralokinumab for patients aged ≥ 6 months and ≥ 18 years, respectively), oral Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib and abrocitinib for patients ages ≥ 12 and ≥ 18 years, respectively), phototherapy (commonly narrow-band ultraviolet light type B treatment), and oral immunomodulators (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, and azathioprine). Combination therapy may be required for the long-term management of more severe AD.
William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
The history and findings in this case are consistent with atopic dermatitis (AD).
AD is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects more than 200 million people worldwide, including as many as 30% of children and 10% of adults. Although it is more common in children (and may persist into adulthood), approximately 1 in 4 adults with AD have adult-onset disease.
The etiology of AD is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors, including a weakened skin barrier, immune dysregulation, and abnormalities of the skin microbiome. AD is a member of the atopic triad (ie, AD, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and asthma), which may commence concurrently or in succession in what is referred to as the "atopic march."
The presentation of adult-onset AD may differ from that seen in children. For example, the most commonly reported body regions affected in adult-onset AD are the hands, eyelids, neck, and flexural surfaces of the upper limbs. In contrast, childhood-onset AD is less specific to body regions other than flexural areas. Xerosis is a prominent feature, and lichenification may be present. Some patients may have a rippled, brown macular ring around the neck, simulating the pigmentations seen in macular amyloid but due instead to postinflammatory melanin deposition. Pruritus is the most common and bothersome symptom associated with AD; patients may also experience anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.
Diminished quality of life, reduced productivity at work and school, and increased healthcare costs (hospitalizations, emergency visits, outpatient visits, and medications) have all been reported in patients with AD. Triggers for flare-ups vary among individuals; commonly reported triggers include physical or emotional stress, changes in temperature or humidity, sweating, allergens, and irritants.
AD is typically diagnosed clinically given the characteristic distribution of lesions in various age groups (infancy, childhood, and adult). Associated findings such as keratosis pilaris may help to facilitate the diagnosis. No biomarker for the diagnosis of AD has been found and laboratory testing is rarely necessary. However, a swab of infected skin may help to isolate a specific involved organism (eg, Staphylococcus or Streptococcus) and antibiotic sensitivity. Allergy and radioallergosorbent testing are not necessary to make the diagnosis. A swab for viral polymerase chain reaction may be beneficial to help identify superinfection with herpes simplex virus and identify a diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. Testing for serum IgE level can also be helpful for supporting the diagnosis of AD.
The management of AD includes trigger avoidance, daily skin care with application of emollients, anti-inflammatory therapy, and other complementary modalities. For mild or moderate AD, first-line treatment consists of topical anti-inflammatory ointments and creams, including topical corticosteroids, which are available in a broad range of potencies. Other topical medications include topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for patients aged ≥ 2 years), which may be particularly appropriate when there is concern for adverse events secondary to corticosteroid use; topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor (crisaborole ointment for patients aged ≥ 3 months); and topical Janus kinase inhibitor (ruxolitinib cream for patients aged ≥ 12 years).
For patients with moderate to severe AD, or for those who are refractory to topical medications, treatment may include biologic therapy (dupilumab and tralokinumab for patients aged ≥ 6 months and ≥ 18 years, respectively), oral Janus kinase inhibitors (upadacitinib and abrocitinib for patients ages ≥ 12 and ≥ 18 years, respectively), phototherapy (commonly narrow-band ultraviolet light type B treatment), and oral immunomodulators (including methotrexate, mycophenolate, and azathioprine). Combination therapy may be required for the long-term management of more severe AD.
William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
A 52-year-old woman presents with complaints of an itchy rash on her arms, legs, neck, and eyelids. She reports having flares with a similar eruption on her arms and legs over the past 2 years, but on previous occasions she was able to manage it with topical emollients. Over the past 6 months, however, it has worsened both in intensity and spread. She describes the rash as intensely pruritic, and now that it has become more visible, she reports feeling embarrassed by it at work and during social outings. The itch is also disrupting her sleep. The patient states that she is undergoing an extremely stressful period in her life because of her parents' declining health and a recent separation from her husband.
Approximately 3 months ago, she visited her primary care provider, who diagnosed her with an allergic rash and prescribed a course of an oral glucocorticoid. Initially, she thought the treatment worked, but the rash soon recurred after she finished her treatment.
Physical examination reveals scaly, crusted hyperpigmented lesions involving the arms, flexural areas of the elbows and knees, neck, and eyelids. Lichenification and xerosis are observed. There is no evidence of conjunctivitis or scalp involvement. The turbinates are not inflamed. Complete blood count findings are within normal range. The patient is 5 ft 3 in and weighs 125 lb (BMI 22.1) and is a nonsmoker.
USPSTF maintains ‘insufficient evidence’ for lipid disorder screenings in kids and teens
The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.
The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.
“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”
The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.
The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.
Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.
In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.
“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.
They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.
Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.
Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.
“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.
One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.
The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.
“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”
The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.
The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.
Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.
In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.
“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.
They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.
Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.
Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.
“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.
One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The group’s final recommendation and corresponding evidence report were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, following a draft recommendation in January.
The organization reached a similar conclusion following its evaluation in 2016.
“There’s just not enough evidence to determine whether or not screening all children for high cholesterol improves their heart health into adulthood,” said Katrina Donahue, MD, MPH, a USPSTF member and a professor in the department of family medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We’re calling for additional research on the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of high cholesterol in children and adolescents to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and death in adulthood.”
The task force recommended other evidence-based strategies to promote heart health, such as screening for obesity and interventions to prevent tobacco use.
The recommendation was the result of a review of 43 studies from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 16, 2022. No randomized controlled trial directly addressed the effectiveness or harms of lipid screening for children and adolescents. The task force continued to use article alerts and targeted journal searches through March 24, 2023.
Conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia can cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, potentially leading to premature cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in adulthood. According to the USPSTF, the prevalence of FH in U.S. children and adolescents ranges from 0.2% to 0.4% (one in every 250-500 youth). Multifactorial dyslipidemia is more common – the prevalence in children and adolescents ranges from 7.1% to 9.4%.
In an editorial response to the task force’s statement, the authors, including Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, question the impact of not screening children to identify FH and other conditions and caution against the subsequent delay in treatment.
“Treating FH during childhood slows the progression of vascular finding in atherosclerosis,” the authors write.
They note that the recommendation “leaves a void for clinicians seeking to provide care for patients today” while additional research is conducted.
Sarah Nosal, MD, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that despite the lack of a recommendation, primary care clinicians can still encourage proper nutrition and physical activity for patients.
Dr. Nosal said that even without clear recommendations from the USPSTF, in the rare case of a patient with a family history of FH, she would order a lipid test and discuss treatment plans with the patient and family, if needed.
“We really don’t want to do tests that we don’t know what to do with the information,” she said.
One USPSTF member reported receiving grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.